Centre for Internet and Society

Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010)

pranesh — 2011-08-22T13:28:42Z

This is a version of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as it would appear if the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, were adopted in toto. This has been produced to aid commentators, and is not meant to serve any other purpose. Errors may remain in it, despite my best efforts. If you find any, please e-mail . (Version 0.96 / Last updated: Friday, May 28, 2010)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act

Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010)

admin — 2011-08-24T06:58:10Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act.html

Indian businesses crave IP certainty, but better patent values are tempting them overseas

praskrishna — 2015-05-05T02:27:57Z

Indian corporate leaders view a strong and sustainable IP system as key to furthering their country’s economic development and attracting continued foreign investment, a recent study suggests. A lack of confidence that this is currently the case – and the perceived higher value attached to IP assets in other markets – is driving some of the brightest high tech prospects to build their businesses abroad rather than at home.

This was published in iam magazine. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Research and advocacy firm Strategic Partners Group (SPAG) surveyed executives in a number of major Indian and multinational companies across six broadly defined sectors: healthcare, pharmaceuticals and diagnostics (life sciences); information technology, fast-moving consumer goods and telecommunications (IT/telecoms); legal services; music and entertainment; academic/research institutions; and industry associations. Ninety-nine percent of respondents to the survey agreed that intellectual property plays an important role in their industry. When asked if they believed India has a ‘sound IP policy’, 70% of life sciences, 79% of IT/telecoms and 80% of industry association respondents gave a negative answer. The group that most frequently answered in the affirmative was legal services providers, who were split 50/50 between those content with India’s current IP policy and those wanting to see improvements. While 29% of survey respondents felt that India’s policy makers are doing enough to establish a strong IP rights regime in the country, 65% thought otherwise.

India is all too often thought of by foreign companies as being a highly problematic place in which to own, manage and enforce intellectual property, due to what they see as inefficient infrastructure and misguided policy. The country’s treatment of pharmaceutical patents has been of particular concern to outsiders in recent years. As such, the resulting environment is seen to be somewhat biased in favour of alleged infringers. As a result, foreign rights holders and governments (the United States, in particular) have called on the country’s authorities to review its laws and regulations to bring them into line with what they would argue are international norms.

But the findings of the SPAG survey highlight that it is not just IP owners from overseas who feel they are missing out because of the country’s challenging IP regime. India has one of the most pronounced brain-drains of any country in terms of inventor emigration. And worryingly for the government, several high-profile start-ups have decided to move out of India in recent times in order to take advantage of better appreciation of the value of their intellectual property in other jurisdictions.

Sriram Kanuni, founder of IT consultancy Arteria Technologies, told the Economic Times recently that he had relocated much of his company’s IP holdings to the United States in an effort to get a better valuation for its next round of funding. “Global investors seem to value companies with patents in the United States much higher,” he said. “Therefore, it makes more sense to shift patents out of India, in case you're looking to raise money or exit.”

According to the Times, e-commerce company Flipkart, mobile advertising firm InMobi and customer engagement solutions provider Capillary Technologies all decided to incorporate in Singapore rather than their native India; while data protection start-up Druva opted to make California its new home. Mobile marketing and analytics firm ZipDial also incorporated in the city state; if it had remained in India, its chances of being acquired by Twitter for a reported sum of between $30 million and $40 million back in January may have been significantly lower.

At least part of the issue lies in a lack of certainty surrounding the Indian court system’s treatment of IP rights. “Indian courts aren't uniform when it comes to developing jurisprudence around copyright and patent infringement,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, told theTimes. He opined that judges lacking in IP-related experience may sometimes grant injunctions too readily. “Then the loss of six months… can be quite expensive, because in six months' time your competitor might eat into all of your market.”

According to the SPAG report, Indian courts are yet to award damages in a patent case. They have allocated damages in 72% of trademark cases, 27% of copyright cases and 1% of publicity rights cases, though the approximate average amount awarded is a rather paltry-sounding $1,000.

It sounds like IP policy-shapers in India – whether in government, the judiciary or business – have plenty of work on their hands in order to keep its brightest innovation prospects in the country. India has a lot to offer which may make it more attractive to many foreign rights holders than other developing IP markets. But without an IP system that effectively addresses the value of IP assets, multinationals will continue to be apprehensive to increase their investments in the country – and emerging domestic players may feel they have little choice but to make their IP-related investments elsewhere.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/iam-media-jack-ellis-april-28-2015-indian-businesses-crave-ip-certainty-but-better-patent-values-are-tempting-them-overseas

India’s Indigenous Languages Drive Wikipedia’s Growth

praskrishna — 2013-08-09T09:58:05Z

Despite accommodating the world’s second largest English-speaking population behind the United States, it is India’s indigenous language speakers that are creating and consuming the content that is driving Wikipedia’s growth on the subcontinent.

Note: We have published only portions where CIS has been mentioned and T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, Access to Knowledge has been quoted. The complete post by Mahesh Sharma was published in TechCrunch on August 6, 2013, you can read it here.

The Wikimedia Foundation last year issued a ~~$40,000~~ $440,000 grant to the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), which, along with the local Wikimedia chapter, has trained almost 2,500 Indians how to edit and create content in their local languages.

Last September, CIS targeted ten tongues — Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Odia, Punjabi and Telugu — and started working with India’s Wikimedia chapter, responsible for coordinating the local volunteer efforts, to boost the amount of local language content being created on a range of websites including, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and WikiCommons.

CIS said that between September 2012 and April 2013 the number of page views increased by almost four million.

While the program has had an impact, director T. Vishnu Vardhan admitted there were some ominous findings. After CIS stopped supporting the Assamese Wikipedia in January 2013, the 20 active editors all but left the site.

“The decline over the last three months also alerts us to the possibility of building dependencies on the program, which is a concern that we need to address going forward,” Vishnu said. ”We need to ensure this community and new people are sustained, that we engage them keep and them interested by showing them the excitement of being part of open knowledge building.”

Ultimately, Vardhan hopes this capacity building exercise will spark a self-fulfilling cycle of local Wikipedia content production and consumption. These reach of these tools is growing as last month, mobile operator Aircel and Wikimedia India announced that subscribers could freely access m.wikipedia.org, available in 19 Indian languages, from their mobile phones

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/techcrunch-august-6-2013-mahesh-sharma-indias-indigenous-languages-drive-wikipedias-growth

India- EU FTA: A Note on the Copyright Issues

nehaa — 2013-07-03T06:47:08Z

In this blog post, Nehaa Chaudhari gives us an overview of some of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the copyright issues identified therein.

Click to download the India-EU FTA: A Note on Copyright Issues (PDF, 205 Kb)

Against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations dating back to 2007, and, more recently, with parties being unable to make substantial progress on the Indo-EU FTA[1] this note presents an overview on some of the provisions of the FTA and the copyright issues identified therein. This note deals with the issues on two levels- first to examine the impact of intellectual property right provisions in FTAs in general and second to apply these generic principles to the Indo- EU FTA specifically.

Introduction

Investment agreements, of which bilateral investment treaties are a part, and investment chapters in various FTAs often result in an increase in the effective levels of intellectual property protection in one of the countries that is a part to the agreement. This can be done either explicitly, where ‘investment’ may be defined to include IP, or implicitly, for instance, through an expropriation provision.[2] This has concurrently witnessed the growing realization that the promotion of these increased IP standards is not suited to the need of developing countries. Therefore, it has been observed[3]that there is now an attempt by the developed countries to use FTAs as a forum to push for higher standards of IP protection in developing countries, and to restrict the scope of the flexibilities offered by TRIPS, most notably in the sectors of protection of plant varieties, patents and access to medicine, farmers rights and access to information.[4]This approach is inherently problematic, because it then infringes on the developing countries’ ability to achieve their developmental objectives.

Dismantling the Arguments In Favour of Increased IP Protection

A prevalent view of thought is that in order to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), developing countries would have to increase their IP protection. This section of the paper seeks to argue that this might not necessarily be the case.

An illustration of the aforesaid proposition may be Heald’s criticism[5] levied on Mansfield’s paper[6] arguing that there was a direct correlation between the level of intellectual property protection in a country and the foreign direct investment into that country. Further, a study[7] conducted under the aegis of the United Nations has suggested that there was a ‘considerable incentive’ for countries to use the flexibilities provided under TRIPS to maximise net benefits for their development; stating that while in countries with a capacity to innovate stronger IPR protection can reap some benefits in terms of greater innovation at home and a greater diffusion of technology, the same cannot be said about nations without such a capacity, and may in fact impose additional costs.[8]

Specifically in the area of copyright, it has been observed that increased copyright protection can hamper the growth and development of knowledge based industries. Sanya Smith argues that those who control copyright have a ‘significant advantage’ in the knowledge based economy, and says that in the current scenario where ownership of copyright is largely in the hands of industrialized nations, this places developing nations, and smaller economies at a significant disadvantage.[9] She also goes on to argue that increasing copyright protection alone does not seem to be sufficient to stimulate industries, and there may other factors involved. Additionally, copyright could also significantly increase the cost of creative industries.[10] More fundamentally however, access to information and knowledge are amongst the most affected areas as a result of tightening of copyright laws, leaving students, academicians, researchers, scientists and persons with print disability significantly disadvantaged.

Implications of the Copyright Provisions in the Proposed Indo- EU FTA

Based on the general discussion earlier, this section of the paper seeks to examine the proposed and long debated Indo- EU FTA for the concerns enumerated earlier. As things currently stand, both parties have failed to reach a consensus on various substantial differences, and a ministerial meet originally scheduled for June seems unlikely to take place.[11]

It has been observed[12] that the Indo- EU FTA[13] includes various provisions that preserve the flexibilities offered under the TRIPS framework. This is extremely critical from the perspective of developing countries, given that access to knowledge is an extremely important ideal to be preserved. For instance, as noted by Knowledge Ecology International[14]the proposed FTA includes Articles 7 (Objectives) and 8 (Principles) of the TRIPS[15] by reference. Further, the language of Article 13 under the proposed FTA explicitly recognizes the importance of the Doha Declaration, which is a positive step.[16] It has been said however, that stronger language where the parties ‘affirmed’ their obligations under the Declaration could have been used.[17] However, this does not take away from the fact that many of the provisions of the proposed FTA are extremely problematic, as will be discussed in the forthcoming parts of this paper.

Problematic Provisions

The main concern that has emerged from this FTA is the fact that some of its provisions dealing with IPR go beyond the mandate as under the TRIPS Agreement. For instance, as pointed out by Shamnaad Basheer to Intellectual Property Watch, various provisions now provide for intermediary liability, which isn’t present in TRIPS. He also adds however, that if the initial stand of the government that India would not go TRIPS plus continues to hold, the government should indeed adopt a strong stance and not cave in to the said provisions.[18] An overview of some of the problematic provisions has been presented hereafter:

International Obligations

As per the proposed treaty, protection granted by the parties should be in accordance with the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention and the WIPO Copyright and Performance and Phonograms Treaties. Snehashish Ghosh in his blog post[19] writes that the EU stipulates compliance with Articles 1 through 22 of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (1961), Articles 1 through 14 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty – WCT (Geneva, 1996), Articles 1 through 23 of the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty – WPPT (Geneva, 1996). It is critical to note that the Rome Convention is not in force in India[20], and that India is not a party to either the WCT[21] or the WPPT[22], and therefore, this provision would have the effect of substantially surpassing all obligations that India has at the moment under multilateral international agreements.

Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) and Digital Rights Management (DRM)

A TPM, understood simply, is a lock in a digital format, placed on digital material to prevent access to or copying of the material in question. The problem with such measures is that they can prevent even those forms of copying which are legal (for instance, the copying of a movie on which copyright has expired could be prevented), creating a potentially infinite monopoly over the product in question. India, in its negotiations with the EU, has agreed to sweeping language under this provision, where TPMs and DRM measures are broadly defined. The Agreement further provides for limitations on TPM protections only to persons who have “legal access to the protected work or subject matter”.[23]

Copyright Expansion

There are various provisions under the proposed FTA that have the effect of copyright expansion. To begin with, the duration of protection for photographic works is not expressly mentioned in the proposed agreement.[24] Snehashish Ghosh concludes that the term of photographic works is unclear in the proposed FTA. He writes that the proposed FTA makes it mandatory for the parties to comply with the Berne Convention, and all literary and artistic work under the proposed FTA is to be construed as the same as the Berne Convention[25]. Photographic works are included under literary and artistic works under the Berne Convention, and the rights of an author in case of photographic works are protected for a minimum period of 25 years. However, the proposed FTA extends the period of protection to beyond that prescribed by the Berne Convention and states that protection is given to literary and artistic works (as defined in the Berne Convention) for a period of the duration of the life of the author plus fifty years after this death. It further states that works for which the period of protection is not calculated from the death of the author, and which have not been lawfully made available to the public within at least 50 years from their creation, the protection shall terminate.[26]

Article 7.6 (proposed by the EU), limits the resale rights of a downstream purchaser. It has been noted by Knowledge Ecology International[27] that this seems to give the author of an original work of art a right in perpetuity, to receive a royalty for the resale of the piece of art, where such right cannot be waived or transferred by the author of the work. Therefore, a situation would arise where each time a person who has purchased the work wants to resell the same, he would have to pay royalties to the original author.[28] The observations further go on to note that royalties are not limited, and the amount has to be determined by national legislation. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the provision does not cease to apply after a given number of re-sales, and continues to the death of the author (but might not into the 50 year protection post the death of the author).[29]

Exceptions and limitations for copyright have been covered under Article 7.9(1) of the proposed FTA, and they may be created “only” in accordance with the three step test, which is essentially that (a) the exceptions and limitations must apply in certain special cases; (b) must not be in conflict with the normal course of exploitation of the subject matter in question and (c) must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holders.[30] It has been observed that this test is more restrictive than TRIPS, Berne Convention, Rome Convention or the WCT.[31]

On the plus side, temporary copies have been excluded from copyright protection, as per Article 7.9(2) of the proposed FTA, which would ensure the proper functioning of technology.

Persons with Disabilities

There is nothing that deals with the import/export or cross border exchange of files/documents/books etc. for persons with disabilities.

Cross Border Measures

Cross Border Measures have been dealt with under Article 30 of the proposed FTA. It is interesting to note that under this Article the EU has proposed the application of border measures to exports as well. This is contrary to the position laid down in the TRIPS Agreement, which has this requirement only for importing infringing goods.[32] Further, the EU also seeks to expand the applicability of such measures to include those goods which also infringe designs or geographical indications. Additionally, Article 30 also leaves out certain TRIPS safeguards, for instance, one that requires the right holder to provide adequate evidence for a prima facie case of infringement.[33]

Intermediary Liability

It has been suggested that the EU, under the garb of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by users, is purporting to place a greater burden on the providers in question, of policing user activity.[34] For instance under Article 35.1.1 of the proposed FTA, while service providers are not under any general obligation to seek facts or circumstances that could indicate illegal activity, they may be obligated to promptly inform competent authorities of these alleged illegal activities undertaken/information provided by recipients of their service. [35] Otherwise, the providers may also be required to communicate to the authorities, on their request, information that would enable the identification of their service with whom they have storage agreements, as per Article 35.1.2.[36] It has been rightly identified by Glover Wright, that such provisions would only serve to increase tensions between the users and their service providers, with relations dictated by concerns about liability, and barriers in the sending, receiving and storing of information freely. It would be a tricky question for intermediate service providers to check what would constitute ‘knowledge’ and how they were to best safeguard themselves from liability.[37] Therefore, the author is inclined to agree with Wright’s submission that India needs to reject all provisions of liability of intermediate service providers as discussed above.

IP Enforcement

There exist, as regards the enforcement of rights, many problematic provisions in the proposed FTA. For starters, the EU has proposed that interlocutory injunctions may also be issued under the same conditions against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe intellectual property rights.[38] This may be found under Article 22.1 of the proposed FTA, and is inherently problematic for being a provision far beyond the mandate as laid down by TRIPS.

The EU is also pushing for the use of very explicit language as regards seizing movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer as a precautionary measure. This also extends to the blocking of the bank accounts and other assets of the said infringer, and to this end, competent authorities may even order the communication of bank, financial or commercial documents, or access to the said information.[39] It is critical to note that such a provision is greatly problematic as being rather vague in its approach, and very readily compromising privacy for ‘alleged’ acts of infringement.

It is further critical to note that while Article 20 states that courts should have the power to grant ex parte order to collect evidence that is allegedly infringing, there are no safeguards provided for protection of a bona fide defendant whose premises might have been raided wrongly. It is submitted that provisions that safeguard the interests of defendants are of prime importance, especially in the Indian set up, where courts are as it is rather generous in their granting of ex parte orders.

Concluding Observations

While India may stand to benefit from the proposed FTA with the EU, there remain significant IP related issues that need to be ironed out before India comes to any consensus about the agreement and ratifies the same. On the basis of the discussion over the course of this paper, it may be seen that the provisions on intellectual property rights are problematic on various levels, particularly in the areas of expansion of copyright, the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions, cross border measures, TPMs, liability of service providers and enforcement mechanisms.

Discussions in the first half of this paper have demonstrated that increased IP protections do not necessarily translate into increased FDI and may in fact stifle innovation. Further, the warning to developing countries against adopting IPR standards fixed by developed nations has been sounded many times over, and is one that needs to be heeded to very closely for developing nations to achieve their developmental objectives.

India has over a period of time established an IP regime that is consumer friendly. In adopting the proposed FTA in its current form, she risks endangering this regime that has thus far been instrumental in proliferating emerging technologies in the county.[40] Given that India has already acceded to international standards for IPRs as a result of being a member of the WTO and being TRIPS compliant, there is no cogent reason to be made out that warrants the accession to an FTA with TRIPS plus provisions. India ought to continue to push back strongly on these fronts, bearing in mind that its stance could very well set the tone for other such agreements in South Asia. From the way things stand at the moment, it is indeed a matter of some relief that the ratification of this proposed FTA still appears to be at a considerable distance.

[1].Hereafter referred to as the FTA.

[2]. Sanya Reid Smith, Intellectual Property in Free Trade Agreements, for the UNDP Regional Trade Workshop (17-18 December, Penang, Malaysia), available at http://bit.ly/11W8dqy (last accessed 04 June, 2013).

[3]. Id.

[4]. Id at 5.

[5]. Supra note 2, citing PJ Heald, Information Economics and Policy 16 (2004) 57-65

[6]. Edwin Mansfield, Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, International Finance Corporation: Discussion Paper No. 19, available at http://bit.ly/18V4D5v (last accessed 05 June, 2013)

[7]. See generally- Rod Falvey et. al., The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence, United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Discussion Paper (2006), available at http://bit.ly/11JBR4o (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[8]. Id.

[9]. Supra note 2 at 23.

[10]. Supra note 2 at 23.

[11]. PTI, India – EU FTA Talks Fail to Bridge Gaps, available at http://bit.ly/19LJaeP (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[12]. Krista Cox, Quick Reaction to the EU/India (BTIA) Negotiating Text, available at http://keionline.org/node/1693 (last accessed 04 June, 2013).

[13]. Hereafter referred to as the FTA

[14]. KEI Staff, More Notes on the India EU FTA (BTIA), available at http://keionline.org/node/1692 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[15]. See http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ for more details, and for the bare text of the Articles. (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[16]. Supra note 14.

[17]. Supra note 12.

[18]. Patralekha Chatterjee, Leaked IP Chapter of India- EU FTA Shows TRIPS-PLUS Pitfalls for India, Expert Says, available at http://bit.ly/Y7w70e (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[19]. Snehashish Ghosh, Analysis of Copyright Expansion in the India-EU FTA (July 2010), available at http://bit.ly/ysitEC (last accessed 03 June, 2013).

[20]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/UITpsX (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[21]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/f92xL2 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[22]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see http://bit.ly/fEsUAF (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[23]. Supra note 14.

[24]. Supra note 19.

[25]. Supra note 19.

[26]. Supra note 19.

[27]. Supra note 12.

[28]. Supra note 12.

[29]. Supra note 12.

[30]. Supra note 12.

[31]. Supra note 14.

[32]. Supra note 12.

[33]. Supra note 12.

[34]. See Article 35 of the Proposed FTA.

[35]. Glover Wright, A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, available at http://bit.ly/16Dfuga (last accessed 05 June, 2013) at 12- 14.

[36]. Id.

[37]. Id.

[38]. Thiru, EU-India FTA: EU Pushes for IP Enforcement- IP Chapter Draft Text Under Negotiation (2013), available at http://keionline.org/node/1681 (last accessed 05 June, 2013).

[39]. See Article 22.3 of the proposed FTA.

[40]. Supra note 35.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues

India's Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty Celebrated; Accessible Books Consortium Launched

nehaa — 2014-07-01T11:09:08Z

On Day 1 of the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”), the WIPO organized an event to mark India’s ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, 2013 (“Marrakesh Treaty”), and to launch the Accessible Books Consortium (“ABC”).

India Becomes the First Country to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

Francis Gurry, Director General, WIPO said that the Marrakesh Treaty received 79 signatures in the twelve month period that the treaty was open for signatures. He further said that India’s ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty one year from its conclusion was a “WIPO record of sorts” and a “great example from a major country” of the importance attached to the Marrakesh Treaty.

Dilip Sinha, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in Geneva handed over India’s Instrument of Accession to the Marrakesh Treaty to Francis Gurry. Ambassador Sinha in his speech stressed on the importance of the Marrakesh Treaty to India and said that it helped that India had its amendments to its Copyright Act, 1957 in place, incorporating the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty.

Maryanne Diamond, the Immediate Past President of the World Blind Union (“WBU”) congratulated India on its ratification. Calling it a country who showed “huge leadership” in negotiations of the Marrakesh Treaty, Ms. Diamond said that this ratification was extremely significant, with India being home to a large number of blind and print disabled people and a part of the Global South. Ms. Diamond urged other nations to follow India’s example and make it a priority to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.

Jens Bammel, Secretary General, International Publishers Association (“IPA”) also congratulated India on its ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty and called on other member states to ratify it.

Accessible Books Consortium Launched

At the launch of the ABC, Mr. Gurry said that the Marrakesh Treaty was only the means to an end, where the end was books in the hands of print disabled and visually impaired persons across the world. “To make it operational,” said Mr. Gurry, “we need to have operational activities.” He said that the ABC was an operational activity which would “breathe life” into and “make operational” the legal framework provided by the Marrakesh Treaty.

What Does it Do?

Mr. Gurry said that the ABC aimed at achieving three things- first, capacity building; second, international book exchange and third, international book exchange.

Capacity Building- Mr. Gurry said that the ABC seeks to provide training on accessible book production and distribution. He thanked the Republic of Korea which has committed to providing financial assistance for training in respect of production of books in accessible formats.
International Book Exchange- Mr. Gurry said that this activity was an IT supported facility, namely, the TIGAR Service which has its origins in India. This would allow participating institutions to perform international searches of databases to find out if accessible formats of books are available.
Inclusive Publishing- Mr. Gurry said that at the end of the day, “books should be born accessible” and technology was creating the “promise of the realization of this aspiration.” Mr. Gurry said that the ABC would promote accessible publishing and to this end, had drawn up a charter of accessible publishing- Accessible Publishing Best Practice Guidelines for Publishers. Elsevier is the first publisher to have signed this charter.

India, WBU and IPA delighted

Praising the ABC, Ambassador Sinha called it an indicator of what multi-stakeholder cooperation needs to do. He said that the ABC would assist organizations such as the DAISY Forum of India in achieving the goal of access to books in accessible formats. Congratulating the WIPO for its efforts on this front, Ambassador Sinha said that this would help nations like India realize their goal of achieving the purposes of the Marrakesh Treaty. Ms. Diamond, representing the WBU congratulated Elsevier on signing the charter. Jens Bammel, on behalf of the IPA expressed concern for making books available in accessible formats for non English speakers. The ABC, he said, was a project initiated to “genuinely complement” the Marrakesh Treaty, and would create a global catalogue of accessible works, whether provided by libraries or by publishers. Expressing his delight that the ABC was being supported equally by all stakeholders, Mr. Bammel reached out to member states to support this initiative politically.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/indias-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-celebrated

India's Opening Statement on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-23T15:24:26Z

This was the opening statement of the Indian delegation, delivered by G.R. Raghavender, on Thursday, July 19, 2012, at the 24th meeting of the SCCR at WIPO in Geneva. The statement called upon all countries to conclude textual work on the treaty and call for a Diplomatic Conference to finalize it. This statement received applause, which is highly unusual at the SCCR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Indian delegation is a little bit disappointed about the way we have started this topic of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence in your abilities, but unfortunately we have already lost one hour in this afternoon session. We have only two hours left, unless and until we decide to work beyond 6:00 P.M.

We have a document, SCCR/23/7, on the table. Everybody has this document. We all decided in the last SCCR that we will work on this document and move towards a meaningful treaty. We said, in this very 24th SCCR, we will be ready for that. We should have started article-by-article discussions by now. And as we are involved in the general statements in our agenda, I can go on reading a statement for another 20 minutes as I have about five pages written out. But given our support for the treaty, I won't.

I'm sorry, I respect all the distinguished delegations: they have their own concerns, but Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we should have started article-by-article discussions by now. Yesterday, in the evening at the Chairman plus group leaders plus 3, we all requested that. Whatever happened during the 14, 15 intersessional meetings, we have no objection to that, but people raise the issue of transparency and availability of the document. Whatever changes have been made to the document must be public. If no one is ready to post that document either during the informal discussions, or here in the plenary, they can always come out with the changes made to particular articles, or para in the preamble, when the discussion starts.

We should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty. We are even open to working on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.

If we don't finalize in this SCCR, we cannot go to the General Assembly in the first week of the month of October. If we lose that time, we will have to wait until the next General Assembly, because we cannot have a General Assembly in between.

So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR, waiting for the next General Assembly.

So kindly guide us to start text-based article-by-article discussions, so that we won't go back empty-handed. The Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi

India's Obligations under Bilateral Investment Treaties (Part A): “Bilateral Inhibiting Treaty?” — Investigating the Challenges that Bilateral Investment Treaties pose to the Compulsory Licensing of Pervasive Technology Patent Pools

gavin — 2013-09-02T14:45:08Z

In this blog post, the first of a series of three, Gavin Pereira attempts to address the challenges that India's obligations under Bilateral Investment Treaties may pose to the establishment of a patent pool in the country. The author thanks Puneeth Nagaraj for his guidance and inputs on this paper.

"And finally, many states, unfortunately, see investment treaties as a diplomatic photo opportunity without being fully aware of the actual legal implications."
Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder[1]

Introduction
Continuing from the Indian government’s Economic Reform Program, which had started in 1991,[2] are India’s Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements. Generally referred to as Bilateral Investment Treaties or "BITs," these agreements seek to provide for conditions that are “favourable for greater investment by investors of one State in the territory of the other State”[3] in hopes that this would lead to "stimulation of business initiatives and increase in prosperity."[4]

Since 1996, India has signed a total of 82 BITs, of which 72 have come into force.[5] At the time of signing them, BITs were generally hailed as a means to increase foreign investor confidence during the liberalisation of India’s economy.[6]

Recently however, several notices of disputes were filed or threatened to be filed under these treaties by companies such as Vodafone B.V.[7], Telenor[8] and Sistema.[9] These filings lead to the review of all the BITs signed by India, a procedure that was called upon by the Indian government’s Department for Industrial Policy and Promotion,[10] as well as the composition of an amended model BIT by the Ministry of Finance to increase the threshold requirements for an investor to initiate arbitration.[11]

Such discord between thestate and investors protected under BITs is not unique to India. There has been a steady rise in the number of investment disputes brought to international arbitration with the highest number of known treaty-based disputes filed in 2012. This has been revealed through a review of the claims filed in the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and an inspection of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).[12] In the history of investor-state dispute resolution, the highest reward to the tune of $1.77 billion in Occidental v Ecuador[13] was awarded last year.

In order to better contextualize this background of increasingly assertive investor claims, my essay will first attempt to ascertain the meaning of intellectual property (IP) rights as defined as investments within BITs and explore their effect on the compulsory licensing of information and communication technology patent pools. I will then discuss the relation between covenants that India is a signatory to, Indian copyright law and BITs with an aim to propose measures by which BITs should be suitably amended to allow for India’s burgeoning growth in the budget smartphone market.

BIT Claims Against India
There are a total of 12 known and 17 estimated[14] treaty claims against India, the 11th highest number of claims in the world.[15] Given the strict confidentiality thatcovers these proceedings, this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as there may be several other claims against India that are not available in the public domain.[16]

The tribunal in White Industries v Republic of India [17] — the first investment treaty award against India — held India liable for breaching its obligation to provide “effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights” pursuant to 4(2) of the India-Australia BIT, read with 4(5) of the India-Kuwait BIT. India was ordered to compensate White Industries a total amount of approximately four million Australian dollars plus interest.[18]

The tribunal attributed the inordinate delay by Indian courts, especially the Indian Supreme Court in enforcing an arbitral award in favour of White Industries as a denial of effective means to enforce their right to their investment.[19]

In 2012, Vodafone B.V. filed a notice of dispute, a prerequisite to commence arbitration under the India-Netherlands BIT, claiming that the Indian government’s decision to enact the Indian Finance Bill 2012 would be a failure to accord ‘fair and equitable treatment;’ the reason being that the amendment sought to retroactively tax the 2007 share-purchase agreement between Hutchinson Telecommunications International Ltd. and Vodafone[20] despite the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Vodafone on that issue.[21]

Telenor and Sistema have filed or threatened to file notices of dispute under BITs Following the cancellation of 122 2G spectrum telecom licenses by the Supreme Court.[22] Within these filings was the alleging that the act of the Supreme Court undermined the license allocation process and was a form of indirect expropriation of their investments.[23]

In March 2012, the Children’s Investment Fund (CIF) filed a notice of dispute in a letter addressed to the Minister of Finance, invoking both the India-UK BIT and the India-Cyprus BIT in response to the “seriously impaired business activities and operations of the company” by virtue of their investment in Coal India.[24] They alleged that Coal India’s sale of assets to private companies at below-market price, on the directive of the Government, has caused a huge loss to the Coal India and in effect, to the company’s share value. This claim is unprecedented as CIF is a minority shareholder essentially suing Coal India for greater dividends.[25] CIF has since soldalmost 20% of their shareholding in Coal India.[26]

Intellectual Property and BIT
The Indian model text of BIT’s, and therefore all 82 BITs that have been drafted based on the model text, define "investment" inter alia as "intellectual property rights, in accordance with the laws of the contracting party."[27] This enables investors protected to file BIT claims against India for any action that directly or indirectly adversely affects their IPR, subject to certain other conditions. It was only a matter of time before the full extent of the scope of claims that may be brought forward against India under the numerous BITs had begun to unravel. Two distinct but equally important IP-related court judgments have signaled the possibility of the intervention of investment treaties on India’s IP regime, and in the context of this paper, on affordable smartphones.

The first is the interim injunction passed by the Delhi High Court in Ericsson v Micromax[28] that acknowledged that the plaintiff (Ericsson) has "made out a prima facie case in its favour and balance of convenience…also entirely in its favour." Accordingly, if interim compensation in accordance with a temporary Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) license between Micromax and Ericsson were not granted, "irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff."[29]

The resulting interim arrangement included the execution of a FRAND license, based on FRAND terms, with Micromax agreeing to pay Ericsson between 1.25% and 2% of the sale price of their phone models to Ericsson.[30]

The second of the two court judgments to be looked at is comprised of a series of pharmaceutical patent disputes between global pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic drug producers regarding the compulsory licensing of critical drugs related to cancer and HIV. In March 2012, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks relied on the patentability clause of the Patents Act, 1970[31] to authorise an Indian generic drug producer, Natco Pharma,to manufacture and sell copies of Nexavar, a patented drug sold globally by Bayer.[32]

In April 2013, the Supreme Court allowed Indian generic drug manufacturers to manufacture a version of the cancer drug, Glivec (also known as “Gleevec”), referring to the same patentability clause of the Patents Act in coming to the conclusion that it did not have a feature that qualified it as a true invention.The court emphasised the importance of referring to the evolution of India’s patent regime, specifically the influence of what they term “important milestones,” such as the Justice Bakshi Tek Chand Committee Report, the Justice Ayyangar Committee Report, the growth of India’s domestic pharmaceutical industry after the enactment of the 1970 Patents Act, and the signing of the TRIPS agreement in determining whether a compulsory license should be granted.[33]

Interestingly enough, an immediate reaction to these regulatory and court decisions in the area of pharmaceutical patents included press releases from large law firms discussing the benefits for multinational pharmaceutical companies in seeking dispute resolution under Bilateral Investment Treaties.[34] While there is a WTO Dispute Resolution Mechanism under TRIPS, where contracting parties may request for consultation under Article XXII or initiate dispute resolution under Article XXIII of the GATT, there are a number of reasons why investors chose to file claims under BITs,[35] an aspect that will be discussed in the next post.

Internationally as well, the intertwining of issues of Intellectual Property with BIT claimsis a new development, at the forefront of which is the Australian tobacco plain packaging international arbitration. Australia enacted the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act that increased the Graphic Health Warnings on the front of the packaging from 30% to 75%, and which prescribes every aspect of the appearance, size and shape of tobacco packaging and prohibits the use of trademarks, symbols or graphics other than the brand and variant name in plain font. Philip Morris Asia Limited (PMAL) filed a notice of arbitration under the Hong Kong-Australia BIT arguing that their intellectual property and goodwill were infringed by the Plain Packaging Act.[36]

Pervasive Technology and India’s Growth
The Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression emphasised the importance of the internet, not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression but to promote the progress of society as a whole. The report called upon member states to make the internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all segments of society.The cutting off of users from Internet access, including on grounds of violation of IP,was described as disproportionate and in violation of the reasonable limitations to freedom of expression clause of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.[38]

It is in light of these international developments and global arbitral awards in the area of IP that the compulsory licensing of budget smartphone patents in India needs to be evaluated.

[1]. Latha Jishnu, India’s many investment treaties make it vulnerable, Down To Earth, Jan 31, 2012.

[2]. For a commentary on the slew of FDI measures taken as part of India’s liberalisation, see M.S. Ahluwalia, Economic Reforms in India since 1991: Has Gradualism worked?,16(3) J. Econ. Perspectives 67, 73 (2002).

[3]. See e.g. Preamble to, Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, India-Arg., Aug. 20, 1999, Ministry of Finance-Government of India, http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/Argentina.pdf; Preamble to Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, India-China, Nov. 21, 2006, Ministry of Finance-Government of India, http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/China.pdf.

[4]. Id.

[5]. Ministry of Finance-Government of India, Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements, http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp?pageid=1 (last visited July 17, 2013); ICSID Database of Bilateral Investment Treaties, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet (last visited July 18, 2013).

[6]. Id;India-Germany sign bilateral investment pact, INDIAN EXPRESS, July 16, 1998; YashwantSinha, Foreword to Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, India-Ger., July 10, 1995, Ministry of Finance-Government of India, http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/Germany.pdf.

[7]. Vodafone.com, News Release: Vodafone serves Notice Against Indian Government Under International Bilateral Investment Treaty, http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/media/group_press_releases/2012/bit.html (last visited July 23, 2013).

[8]. Siddharth, Telenor seeks arbitration, claims $14 bn from govt in 2G case, Times of India, Mar. 27, 2012.

[9]. ShauvikGhosh, Sistema asks why India wants to delay arbitration proceedings, Live Mint, Oct. 1, 2012.

[10]. S. Bhushan & Puneeth Nagaraj, Need to align Bilateral Investment Treaty regime with Global Reality, THE HINDU, Jan. 6, 2013; Surabhi, Govt. to review bilateral ties to avoid legal battle with telcos, Indian Express, Apr. 13, 2012.

[11]. Deepshikha Sikarwar, Government to draft model treaty on MNC’s mediation rush, Economic Times, Jul. 9, 2013.

[12]. UNCTAD, INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION ISSUE NOTE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (2013).

[13]. UNCTAD, UNCTAD publishes its review of investor-state dispute settlement, http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=453&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Investment%20and%20Enterprise;#607;#International Investment Agreements (IIA);#20;#UNCTAD Home (last visited Aug. 2, 2013).

[14]. Sikarwar, supra note 11.

[15]. Id. at 29.

[16]. Latha Jishnu, A treaty too many, DOWN TO EARTH, May 15, 2013 (few details are available of the Enron-Dabhol Investment Arbitration under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty).

[17]. White Industries Australia Ltd. v Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Final Award, Nov. 30, 2011.

[18]. Id. at ¶ 16.

[19]. Id. at ¶ 14.3.5. For an understanding of the implications that the White Industries case has for India’s Investment Treaty program, see Prabhash Ranjan, The White Industries Arbitration: Implications for India’s Investment Treaty Program, INVESTMENT TREATY NEWS, Apr. 13, 2012 available at http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/the-white-industries-arbitration-implications-for-indias-investment-treaty-program/.

[20]. Vodafone.com, supra note 7. For an analysis of Vodafone and India’s investment arbitration claims, see RAAG YADAVA ET. AL., VODAFONE AND INDIA: A REVIEW OF CLAIMS IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION (2012).

[21]. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 733 of 2012, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26529 of 2010, Supreme Court of India.

[22]. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (Civil) No: 423 of 2010 with W.P. (Civil) No: 10 of 2011. Supreme Court verdict on 2G spectrum allocation, The Hindu, Feb. 2, 2012.

[23]. Siddarth, supra note 8; Ghosh, supra note 9.

[24]. Sam Jones, TCI initiates legal action against India, Financial Times, Mar. 27, 2013.

[25]. Debjoy Sengupta, UK-based The Children's Fund demands higher dividend from Coal India, The Economic Times, Feb 19,2013.

[26]. See, http://www.vccircle.com/news/commodities/2013/06/25/childrens-investment-fund-sells-fifth-its-holding-coal-india.

[27]. Department of Economic Affairs – Ministry of Finance, Indian Model Text of Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPA), available at http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/icsection/ Indian%20Model%20Text%20BIPA.asp?pageid=1.

[28]. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics & Anr, I.A. No. 3825/2013 in CS(OS) 442/2013, Delhi High Court.

[29]. Id.

[30]. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics & Anr, I.A. No. 4694/2013 in CS(OS) 442/2013, Delhi High Court.

[31]. Section 3(d) - the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

[32]. Vikas Bajaj & Andrew Pollack, India orders Bayer to license a Patented Drug, NYT, March 12, 2012.

[33]. Novartis AG v Union of India &Ors., CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 2013 with Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL No. 2728 OF 2013 with M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association v. Union of India & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 2013, Supreme Court of India (2013).

[34]. See e.g. TREATY PROTECTION FOR GLOBAL PATENTS: A RESPONSE TO A GROWING PROBLEM FOR MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, JONES DAY (October 2012).

[35]. GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE AND TARIFFS , XXII and XIII (1994).

[36]. NOTICE OF ARBITRATION, BETWEEN PHILIP MORRIS ASIA LIMITED AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (2011).

[37]. U.N.G.A. - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, U.N. Doc A/HRC/17/27.

[38]. Id. at 21-22. Article 19 (3) of the ICCPR - The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/bilateral-inhibiting-treaty-investigating-challenges-that-bilateral-investment-treaties-pose-to-compulsory-licensing-of-pervasive-technology-patent-pools

India's 23rd regional Wikipedia, in Tulu, goes live

praskrishna — 2016-08-07T10:31:21Z

The Tulu Wikipedia has just gone live, giving another boost to yet another ancient Indian language otherwise struggling to keep up with the times and speedily changing technology.

Originally published by IANS, it was mirrored by Business Standard on August 6, 2016.

The news was announced by two key community organisers on Saturday who helped to make an eight-year-dream come true. Dr Vishwanatha Badikana, a PhD in Kannada literature in Mangalore (Karnataka) and Bharathesha, a mechanical engineer based in Muscat, announced this while attending Wikiconference India 2016, India's second national Wikipedia meet in half a decade being held here this weekend.

Tulu is a language spoken by around two million native speakers mainly in southwest Karnataka and in Kasaragod district, Kerala. It belongs to the Dravidian family of languages. Some scholars suggest Tulu is among the earliest Dravidian languages with its roots going back some 2000 years.

Wikipedia itself is available in 22 Indian languages, with Tulu becoming the 23rd. There are another one-and-half dozen Indian language Wikipedias in the incubator stage at present. Not all languages have an active wiki community.

Located at tcy.wikipdia.org, the Tulu Wikipedia has been in "incubation" since 2008. This term is used to describe such online collaborately-crafted encyclopedias which are still waiting to to go "live" or active and come online.

Around 2014, it was reactivated. Following some meetings and workshops, the concept was also showcased that year at a "World Tulu Conference" stall in December of that year.

After much work, some 1,100 articles (or 1,050 if one could ignore those which are not redirects) went live. There are currently about 100 editors who have made over 10 edits each.

"Dr Vishwanatha and Bharathesha are the number one and number two contributors," said Dr UB Panavaja, a former scientist and techie and long-term supporter of Kannada computing. Pavanaja currently looks after the CMR (Creating Movement Resources) of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society which works with some language groups to promote their Wikipedia presence.

"After we became live, we will import articles from the 'incubator' site, build the 'village pump', set up policies, administration structure, info boxes and templates," said Pavanaja, describing the tools that any new Wikipedia needs to set up.

Scholars like the nineteenth missionary-linguist Bishop Robert Caldwell have called this language "peculiar and very interesting". According to him, "Tulu is one of the most highly developed languages of the Dravidian family. It looks as if it had been cultivated for its own sake."

The language has a lot of written literature and a rich oral literature such as the Epic of Siri, according to the Wikipedia itself.

In coastal Karnataka, both the Mangalore and Udupi areas today allow the language as an optional third-language in local schools.

This role in schooling makes it all the more mandatory to create encyclopaedic texts in the language, say its Wikipedia promoters. Mangalore University also has a Tulu language chair while St Aloysius's Radio Sarang community radio station broadcasts daily in this tiny language and the local All India Radio also broadcasts in the language.

Some five Kannada language representatives and one from Tulu are presently in Mohali-Chandigarh attending Wikiconference India 2016.

Indian Wikipedias include Assamese, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Bishnupriya Manipuri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Newari, Odia, Pali, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu, besides, now, Tulu.

(Frederick Noronha can be contacted at fredericknoronha1@gmail.com)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/business-standard-august-6-2016-india-23-regional-wikipedia-in-tulu-goes-live

India's 23rd Regional Wikipedia Launches

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T03:14:58Z

A Tulu version has gone live on Wikipedia, making it the 23rd one in an Indian language to do so.

The blog post by Ranu P. was published by CCM.net on August 8, 2016. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was quoted.

Tulu, an Indian language that is popular in the southern part of the country has received its own Wikipedia version — for which over 100 editors created 1,100 articles. The announcement was made on Aug. 6 during the Chandigarh-based WikiConference India 2016 by Vishwanatha Badikana and Bharatesha Alasandemajalu, two community organizers who made an 8-year-old dream come true. The greatest hope is that the Tulu wiki will lend support to the struggling language, which is used by just over 2 million native speakers who largely reside in Karnataka. Some research even suggests that it is among the earliest of Dravidian languages, which would make it roughly 2,000 years old.

"After we became [sic] live, we will import articles from the 'incubator' site, build the 'village pump,' set up policies, administration structure, info boxes, and templates," said Dr. UB Panavaja, an engineer and a longtime supporter of regional language computing. In addition to the 23 already-launched Indian Wiki versions, which include Bengali, Manipuri, Hindi, Nepali, Punjabi, and Urdu, there are another 18 Indian languages that are still in the incubator stage awaiting publishing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ccm-august-8-2016-ranu-p-india-23-regional-wikipedia-launches

India's 23rd Regional Language Wikipedia Goes Live in Tulu

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T03:02:16Z

The Tulu Wikipedia has just gone live, giving another boost to yet another ancient Indian language otherwise struggling to keep up with the times and speedily changing technology.

Originally published by Indo Asian News Service, the blog post was mirrored by NDTV on August 8, 2016.

Located at tcy.wikipedia.org, the Tulu Wikipedia has been in "incubation" since 2008. This term is used to describe such online collaborately-crafted encyclopedias which are still waiting to to go "live" or active and come online.

Around 2014, it was reactivated. Following some meetings and workshops, the concept was also showcased that year at a "World Tulu Conference" stall in December of that year.

After much work, some 1,100 articles (or 1,050 if one could ignore those which are not redirects) went live. There are currently about 100 editors who have made over 10 edits each.

The language has a lot of written literature and a rich oral literature such as the Epic of Siri, according to the Wikipedia itself.

In coastal Karnataka, both the Mangalore and Udupi areas today allow the language as an optional third-language in local schools.

Some five Kannada language representatives and one from Tulu are presently in Mohali-Chandigarh attending Wikiconference India 2016.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/indo-asian-news-service-ndtv-august-8-india-23-regional-language-wikipedia-goes-live-in-tulu

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

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

India and Regional Mega-Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2016-07-30T12:59:56Z

Anubha Sinha was invited by the Observer Research Foundation for a panel discussion on "India and Regional Mega-Trade Agreements" with Ambassador Robert Holleyman, Deputy US Trade Representative and Ambassador Shyam Saran, Chairman, Research and Information System for Developing Countries on July 25, 2016 at ORF Conference Hall in New Delhi.

The discussion comes at a critical time for digital trade in Asia, with the recent conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the continent's emergence as a major contributor the global digital economy.

The growth of the digital economy has spurred new concerns about global tax regimes, and the negotiation of trade terms - including non-tariff barriers and the alignment of policies - even as intellectual property rights are redefined and e-commerce changes industry practices. The backdrop to these developments is the rapid and unpredictable advance of technology, which has prompted the need for adaptive policies. The Digital 2 Dozen, the US tenets for unrestricted commerce and an open internet, is attached for your reference.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-and-regional-mega-trade-agreements

India and France to Digitise Manuscripts, Artworks & Archives

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:15:15Z

The Indian and French governments have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) which will assist in technical knowledge sharing, competency, skill building and cultural exchange between the two countries, as per a PIB release.

This was published by Medianama on October 29, 2015. CIS memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Goa University was mentioned.

The MoU will assist a program on digitisation of old manuscripts and documents, which began in France 7 years ago. The Ministry of Culture will benefit from this and build a national virtual library in India, which will store and share manuscripts, archives and artworks. This library will also link and share all knowledge resources from various Indian and French government institutes and organisations.

The French government is also keen on sorting and deciphering its collection of thousands of Indian documents in Sanskrit, Tamil and other Indian languages with the help of the Indian government, which also incidentally includes correspondence between Rabindranath Tagore and French scholar Sylvan Levin.

NMM digitised over 30 lakh manuscripts last year
In March, we reported that the 12 year old government body National Mission for Manuscripts (NMM) had digitised over thirty lakh manuscripts and 18,588,390 pages in all as of 31 December 2014. Mahesh Sharma, Union Minister of State for Culture, Tourism & Civil Aviation said that the National Archives of India (NAI) was set to digitise another 1,100,000 historic records.

Previous digitisation initiatives:

In November 2014, around 55 books written by the Indian author and activist Niranjana in Kannada would be digitized and made available on Kannada Wikisource, allowing Kannada speakers to access these books easily.
In October 2014, the Ministry of Culture launched a national portal for museums. Collections in all museums under its control and those under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will be digitized and presented on this portal.
In July 2014, the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and Technology released the draft of Open Access Policy under the Ministry of Science and Technology.
In September 2013, Goa University entered into a 3 year MoU with the Centre for Internet and Society for building the Konkani Wikipedia.
In June 2013, Tata Communications Media Services planned to digitize documents of historical and cultural significance such as films and documentaries from the archives of Doordarshan and Films Division of India which go back to 1947 including speeches of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders.
In May 2013, Punjabi Sahitya Akademi Reference Lab scanned and saved around 1,000 manuscripts, stone-printed scripts, poetry books on computer hard discs, adding that the digitized editions will be available across the globe through the internet.

Check out our digitisation and government coverage.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/medianama-sneha-johari-october-29-2015-india-and-france-to-digitise-manuscripts-artworks-and-archives