The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 3
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3
<b></b>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br /> Iran, Pakistan and Kenya highlighted their support toward the African proposal as well emphasized the need for an internationally binding treaty on L&E. Saudi Arabia mentioned the need for Limitations and Exceptions to benefit the preservation and sharing of cultural heritage, as well as for persons with disabilities. Iran emphasied on the need for adequate balance and copyright protection and a balance between different national legislations. Iran stated that there was a need to have an international legal instrument in order to harmonise national legislations, in the absence of which there would not be a free flow of information. Iran also emphasised on the need to look at the priorities of developing countries with respect to the Development Agenda. Pakistan also highlighted the issues that came to light during the pandemic, especially with regard to cross border use of information by educational institutions. In addition to this Pakistan stated that it looked forward to a binding instrument that was not too prescriptive. Kenya shed light on the concerns around the increasing knowledge gap between the developed and the developing countries, and the migration from analogue to digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 4 <br /> <br /> Limitations and Exceptions and Cross Border Flow of Data <br /> </b>Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Uganda and Algeria extended their support to the Work Programme on L&E by the African Group. Nigeria in their statement expressed how L&E were essential for research, cultural exchange, and how it had the potential to help people around the world who still lack access to educational and research materials. Nigeria also highlighted that a legally binding international treaty would help harmonise and balance the copyright system with other instruments such as the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO internet treaties, and facilitate smooth transborder trade in both online and traditional media. Iran stated that the creation of L&E for online and crossborder use of data is imperative, especially for the benefit of online teaching and research as well as bridge the digital divide by facilitating access to knowledge and technology. <br /> <br /> The European Union (EU) and France however were not in support of a legally binding instrument.The EU stated that they would prefer a non-binding instrument such as a toolkit, while France stated that the current international framework of copyright is sufficiently flexible to allow members to implement L&E in their national legislations, as well as to find appropriate tools to meet the needs of education, research and preservation. France expressed their reservation in moving towards a normative framework and stated that the states could look at the exchange of best practice at national level and support in drafting national legislations. The United States stated that topics such as text and data mining and contract override were not issues that were fully discussed yet at the committee level.</p>
<p><b>Observations by the Chair </b></p>
<ol>
<li>The Chair noted that there continued to be a disagreement on whether to pursue international instruments for Limitations and Exceptions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair also noted that while there was a lot of support for the proposal, there still was no consensus on the proposal. The Chair suggested that the African Group work with the member states that highlighted their reservations and work together with the Chair to see if the proposal could be revised, or to look at portions of the proposal that enjoyed the support to be advanced.</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T13:03:42ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 1
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1)The need for balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers 2) Questions around fixation and signal piracy 3) Need for consensus and towards a diplomatic conference </b>
<h3>Opening Statements by Group Coordinators</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay on behalf of the GRULAC spoke about the Marrakesh treaty and highlighted how this was the first treaty that looked at human rights and copyright. Uruguay also mentioned the need to look at exclusion and the need for dissemination of knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Baltic states, Poland expressed their interest in discussing the Limitations and Exceptions (L&E) agenda, with focus on persons with other disabilities, as well as conveyed their interest in examining the <a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf">T</a><a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf">oolkit</a><a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf"> on Preservation</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The African group coordinator Ghana, highlighted the need to look at the contribution to Sustainable Development Goals<b>, </b>they also showed support for Senegal and Congo on their work on artist copyright and resale rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singapore made the statements on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group (APG) group coordinator Indonesia, they commented on the need to work towards a fair and balanced broadcast treaty, and to narrow existing gaps which would require a delicate balance. They also stated that the treaty needs to be comprehensive and inclusive, with limitations and expectations for Libraries, Archives and Museums and areas of cultural importance, as well as access to broadcast content for education and research.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda Item 5: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations</h3>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The need for Balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b>China, Ghana, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, in their statements highlighted the need for balance between the rights of the broadcasters with suitable limitations and exceptions. Iran in their statements also highlighted the work of libraries, archives and museums in education. Iran also highlighted that different parameters for Limitations and Exceptions in member states' national legislations has the potential to cause barriers in the free flow of data for researchers and educators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Colombia spoke about their concerns regarding the fixation rights laid out in the treaty and the working of limitations and exceptions under Article 11. Colombia stated that the use of the term “may” in Article 11 could result in countries ignoring the limitations and exceptions provisions when they adopt this treaty into their national legislations. They suggested the changing of the wording in Article 11 from “may” to “shall” to reflect a balanced and progressive treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria in their statement highlighted the difficulties that were faced by students and educators during Covid 19, when schools and libraries were closed. They also shed light on how limitations and exceptions were not granted uniformly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan also emphasised on the need to look at the interests of educators, and supported the inclusion of mandatory limitations and exceptions while protecting the rights of the creators.</p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Questions around fixation and signal piracy</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) group, The United Kingdom (UK) , Canada, Tajikistan and The United States of America and Japan in their statements mentioned the need to protect broadcasters especially with respect to stopping piracy. The CEBS group stated that in the era of rapidly evolving technologies and changing digital environments there was a need to extend international protection against piracy to different types of transmissions of broadcasting organizations, including those over computer networks. Similarly, the United Kingdom also highlighted the rapid advancements in technology, which enables signal piracy through redirecting. The UK stated that Article 7 of the draft treaty did not provide sufficient protection, an issue that needed more deliberations.</p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Need for consensus and progress towards a diplomatic conference </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>P</b>akistan, China, Kingdom of Eswatini, The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in their statements mentioned that they were looking forward to a diplomatic conference. Pakistan highlighted the need for open and inclusive negotiation in the diplomatic conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India expressed that the scope of protection in the revised draft is more comprehensive and in line with technological developments. The definition of the term broadcasting has also been made more comprehensive with the inclusion of the word “any means”. The definition provided for fixation has been provided along with the rights of fixation under Article 7, which may be the most relevant steps to prevent unauthorised exploitation by a third party to the values represented by the signal. India also stated that the treaty is capable of covering piracy in the digital environment and includes broadcasting of all types of broadcast. India also stated that they support the finalisation of the treaty, maintaining the interest of all member states on fundamental issues.</p>
<h3>Presentation by the Chair and Vice Chair</h3>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">On Article 11 the Chair stated that the list could be made clearer, and also clarified that the list is not a closed list. With respect to the works in the public domain the Chair clarified that the broadcasting and distributing of works in public domain, only the work carrying the signal will be under the treaty.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to the scope of fixation the Chair clarified that the scope of fixation is only for the entity emitting the signal. The focus of the treaty is to limit the rights to signal based rights. </li>
</ol>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T12:01:31ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Rights of broadcasters<br /></b>Iran wanted clarifications about whether the rights granted to broadcasters under the treaty would be a negative right (right to prohibit) or a positive right (right to authorise). Iran also highlighted that there was a need to clarify definitions in the treaty, particularly with respect to user generated contents shared on websites such as Youtube, in comparison with traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the treaty provides two sets of rights, positive rights under Article 6 and 7 and negative rights under Article 8 and 9. The Chair also clarified that the treaty aimed to bridge the various legal frameworks, based on copyright, under a rights based approach and a signal based approach. In the signal based approach, the positive right under Article 6 is based to protect only live signal and the protection ends at the point of fixation, hence there is no relation between the right of fixation Article 7 and the right to prohibit transmission and deferred transmission under article 8. The Chair further clarified that the positive right ends at fixation after which the right to prohibit comes into play. With respect to User Generated Content the Chair clarified that the current draft of the treaty focused protection to traditional broadcasters and not other service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of the Right </b>The USA highlighted their concern over the possible perpetual term of fixation rights and requested that a revised text could have some explicit time limit. Singapore echoed USA’s concern over the absence of limitations on the duration of the rights of the broadcasters which could give broadcasters perpetual protection of a programme. Similarly Pakistan questioned the need for a right of fixation highlighting that piracy was an enforcement issue. With respect to the term of protection the Chair clarified that the treaty sought to provide practical protection to broadcasters of their live signal, and not the content of the broadcast. Further clarifying that one of the main aims of the treaty was the protection of simultaneous retransmission, and to provide protection in case there was a fixation of the signals. <b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Limitations and Exceptions<br /></b>Iran and Brazil highlighted issues about limitations and exceptions. While Iran stated that the inclusion of the three step test in the treaty would water down the limitations and exceptions provisions, Brazil highlighted that the Article 11 of the treaty did not follow the text of the Marakesh convention or the Beijing treaty regarding Limitations and Exceptions. Brazil highlighted that there was a need to clarify in the text of the treaty itself that the list provided under the Article is illustrative and not exhaustive. In addition to this they stated that the text of the treaty should also establish the presumption that all the examples listed have already fulfilled the three steps. Brazil also highlighted the question about the consequence of the proposal on works in the public domain that are not sufficiently clear. The draft should ensure that public domain content when broadcasted should not receive another layer of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Communia, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Innovarte also highlighted issues that might come up with broadcasting works that are in the public domain. Communia provided examples where the broadcasters might have the only good copy of historic events and reporting that have now become a part of the public domain, however the broadcasters could reappropriate these which are in the public domain with new exclusive rights through this treaty. Communia hence suggested a need for exclusion of public domain works in the treaty. Innovarte highlighted Article 6 of the Berne convention which allows for exceptions related to public interest such as use of excerpts.</p>
<h3><b>Agenda Item 6 and 7 - Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, for Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other disabilities </b></h3>
<p><b> </b></p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br />The beginning of the discussion on Limitations and Exceptions began with the CEBS Group, Group B, the European Union and the USA emphasising on the need to look at other avenues to implement L and E without going for a legally binding international instrument. Some of the solutions provided included strengthening existing national legislations, existing solutions within the framework of the existing international treaties, exchange of best practices, and capacity building for countries to implement L&E’s in their national legislations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ghana on behalf of the African Group stated that there was a need to provide mutual benefit between those who generate and those who use creative works. Ghana also highlighted the issues with cross border access and sharing of copyrighted materials which is becoming increasingly difficult for libraries, archives, museums and research institutions to access. Ghana highlighted the need for a strong support in development of a legal instrument on Limitations and Exceptions, for libraries, archives, museums and for persons with disabilities other than blindness. South Africa in their statement also highlighted the benefit L&E’s would provide to both creators and users, and the cross border transfer of data. And extended their support to the statement of Ghana and work towards an international instrument whether model law, joint recommendation or a treaty.<b> </b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T12:22:24ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program
on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the
domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that
there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic,
which will endure in the long term as well.</p>
<p>In India, researchers at public and private institutions in
both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021,
submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing
research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open
Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research
collaborations.</p>
<p>At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action
plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised
limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that
could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.</p>
<p>We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a
Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these
actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the
limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states
making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward
laid in the Proposal.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2022-05-12T08:41:01ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>Mr. Chair we would like to congratulate you and the
vice-chair on your election.</p>
<p>The current draft text of the WIPO Broadcasting
Organisations treaty carries a rather weak framework of limitations and exceptions,
when we consider the long duration of protection of twenty years that has been
proposed.</p>
<p>The limitations and exceptions are not aligned to the
ongoing discussions on the L&E agenda, where there is an agreement evolving
amongst many member states to revisit and revise limitations and exceptions for
purposes of preservation, online and cross-border uses, and research for
benefit of education, research, libraries, archives and museums.</p>
<p>The framework does not rise to these standards, and also
makes enacting of limitations and exceptions in national law optional.</p>
<p>Seen from this perspective, the draft text of the WIPO
Broadcasting Organisations treaty is neither a balanced treaty nor a modern
one.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2022-05-10T14:38:48ZBlog EntryStanding Committee's recommendations are at odds with Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge
<b>The Indian Parliamentary Committee's report weighs on several aspects of the Indian IPR system and issues of protection and enforcement. This blog post summarily notes the observations and recommendations of the Committee on the Copyright Act, 1957 which stand to impact access to knowledge. The primary issue dealt with was the claim that copyright exceptions were affecting the publishing industry and authors. The recommendations include narrowing of copyright exceptions, barring digital storage and copying, promotion of libraries, and adopting the Berne Convention as the benchmark on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>Last week, the Rajya Sabha <strong>Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce</strong> (Committee) tabled its <a class="external-link" href="https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/13/141/161_2021_7_15.pdf">review of the IPR regime in India</a>. The Committee had initiated work in October, 2020, and during the process consulted with law firms, industry associations, and government departments.</p>
<p>The Committee agreed with the contention of the stakeholders that limitations
and exceptions contained in section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 were
having a detrimental impact on the publishing industry and authors. In addition, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) also presented its “corrective measures” to narrow down section 52(1)(i) of the
Copyright Act – the copyright exception that had been the bone of contention in
the <a class="external-link" href="https://eifl.net/blogs/course-packs-education-ruled-legal-india">DU photocopying case</a>. They included 1) permitting only the making of print
copies of literary works which are available in libraries at government-owned
educational institutions, to “avoid any commercial gains from the work of
publishers”; 2) quantitatively restricting the reproduction (in cases of books)
to ten percent of the total number of pages of the book; and alarmingly also 3)
barring the storage of material in the form of scanned or digital formats.</p>
<div>
The Committee further expressed its concerns about the conflict between
copyright holders and educational institutions caused by section 52(1)
of the Act. Section 52(1) is the provision that contains limitations and exceptions. The Committee suggested that the protection of books and works be
balanced against public accessibility of works at an affordable rate. In its
recommendation, it directed the DPIIT to amend section 52(1) to ‘facilitate’ a
fair and equitable ecosystem of literary culture. The measures suggested are: <br /><br /></div>
<ul><li>Permitting the copying of works only in government-owned educational institutions and storing it in libraries
for easy access to students; </li><li>
Imposing
limitations on unrestricted copying of books and literary works and storage of copied
works in digital formats;</li><li>
Promotion of
establishing of community libraries and upgrading existing libraries in the country
for easy access to works of foreign publishers which are exorbitantly priced
and difficult to access;</li><li>National
Mission on Library, a venture of Central Government to strengthen the library
system, should be implemented at the earliest;</li><li>
DPIIT
to undertake a study of the Berne Convention to inform the copyright regime,
and the Berne Convention should be referred to in matters of limitations and
exceptions in the country.</li></ul>
<div> </div>
<p>Separately,
the report also makes certain recommendations in respect of registration of
copyright societies and treating internet/ digital streaming platforms as broadcasters
for purposes of section 31D license.</p>
<p>The recommendations to narrow copyright exceptions and limit digital uses of works are very concerning. It appears that the recommendations shift the financial burden of
ensuring access to educational material on public libraries, yet at the same
time, restrict the permissible uses of works in libraries.</p>
<p>Since
2020, both government and Parliament have conducted separate consultations on
the IPR regime without hearing all stakeholders. In the case of the consultation
exercise initiated by DPIIT, details still have not been made public. In the
Parliament’s case, it is concerning that key stakeholders and beneficiaries on education and research such as institutions, libraries, teachers, researchers etc. have not been consulted. Neither the substantive part nor the minutes discuss any research or evidence on the issues. As <a class="external-link" href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/a-parliamentary-standing-committee-report-that-challenges-the-fine-balances-within-the-ip-system">noted </a>by
Prof. Scaria, this is hardly a balanced exercise and the report is nowhere
close to the level of rigor and depth expected from a Parliamentary Standing
Committee.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLibrariesParliamentLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-07-28T09:31:53ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 3 and Day 4
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1
<b>Day 3 and 4 saw the presentation of four studies conducted by external experts on music markets in various regions in the world and one study on rights of stage directors of theatrical productions. Day 4 saw member states sharing their positions on a proposal for creation of two rights 1) rights of stage directors of stage productions and 2) public lending right.
The Chair also presented the draft summary of the session upon its conclusion, on Day 4. This blog post shares the specific text under the broadcasting and limitations and exceptions agenda items, relevant from an access to knowledge perspective.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">1. On the issue of transparency and inclusivity in informal work on the 'protection of broadcasting organisations' agenda item, that emerged on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1">Day 1</a>, the Chair summarised:</span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" </span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c9f5266b-7fff-0158-ea0e-f92bc8fc953c">The chair and vice chair and will take the views expressed during the session on the modalities of the informal work into consideration, including the need to uphold the principles of transparency and inclusivity."</span></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">2. An 'information session' on impact of COVID was proposed by the Asia-pacific group on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2">Day 2</a>, the Chair summarised:<br /></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"></span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" The Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session, footnote 1, the text of the footnote is as follows. The reference to half day is based on a meeting day with two three-hour sessions, in case SCCR/42 has truncated meeting days with single daily meeting sessions of up to three hours, the information session could take place during one entire day. </span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">So, back to the sentence after the footnote. I will repeat, the Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session on the topic of the impact of COVID-19 on the <strong>cultural, creative and educational ecosystem including copyright, related rights and limitations and exceptions</strong> during the week of the 42nd session of the Committee. During the session following presentations from experts, member states will have the opportunity to exchange views and experiences. This process will be guided by a holistic and balanced approach. The information session will be separated from the rest of the agenda during the 42nd session."</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:51:23ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the scope, direction, and progress of work on the limitations and exceptions agenda. This blog post summarises positions and contentions around: 1) Information Session on impact COVID 2) Creating a binding limitations and exceptions international instrument 3) Work Plan under the L&E agenda 4) Conducting regional consultations as per the report on regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>There was a strong consensus on the fact that COVID had adversely affected actors and beneficiaries involved with the copyright system, but there was less consensus on which stakeholders and beneficiaries to focus on as a priority, and which next steps and remedies should be considered. The gamut of stakeholders under the limitations and exceptions agenda item includes authors, publishers, creative cultural industries, educational and research institutions, persons with disabilities, libraries, museums, and archives, licensing societies, and users’ rights advocates.</p>
<h2>Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
<h3>1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID <br /></h3>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) proposed an information session on the copyright framework in the format of presentations from experts and relevant stakeholders as well as exchange of views among them at the next SCCR (SCCR42) to understand the impact on COVID-19, especially as developing countries, with a view of rights, related rights and exceptions and limitations. It noted the lack of international settings that could have enabled a collaborative approach during COVID-19 to handling the impact on education, research, culture and knowledge.</p>
<p>Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iran supported the proposal. South Africa backed both the proposal and the regional consultations along with a preference for completing them in a time bound manner by the next SCCR. Belarus was in support as well.</p>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) was in favour of an information session for evaluating an all-round impact of the pandemic which was not only from a limitations and exceptions viewpoint. In a similar vein, USA suggested that the information session be holistic in its framing – all parts of the copyright system should be taken into consideration. UK (on behalf of Group B) stated that it would prefer to examine a formal proposal document on such a session first, that should adopt a ‘holistic approach’.</p>
<p>Towards the end, Indonesia questioned whether the idea of a ‘holistic’ information session equally focused on rights and related rights could even be counted or considered as a next step in the limitations and exceptions (“<strong>L&E</strong>”) agenda item.</p>
<h3>2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument <br /></h3>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) stuck to its position of 1) taking an evidence-based approach on the way forward for the L&E agenda and preference to 2) exchanging national best practices instead of creating a binding treaty. Ecuador was also in favour of exchanging best practices. UK (on behalf of group B) was in favour of providing technical assistance to countries, and the EU and USA maintained their position against an international instrument.</p>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) stated that COVID had forced a rethink of role of copyright in ensuring access to educational and resource materials as well as protecting the rights of the creators of the copyrighted works, in situations such as the pandemic. The absence of an international instrument on limitations and exceptions has been widely felt in this context.</p>
<p>Pakistan stated that a baseline international instrument was necessary and would be useful for looking at one’s own national law. South Africa (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) Indonesia reminded everyone that work under this agenda item should proceed under the 2012 mandate of developing a legal instrument on limitations and exceptions. Iran also expressed its support for a norm-setting instrument.</p>
<h3>3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda <br /></h3>
<p>South Africa said that a clear way forward for limitations and exceptions was necessary, and that way forward should not be limited to the views and steps mentioned in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report on the regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions ("<strong>report</strong>")</a>. It also supported the 2012 mandate on developing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of group B) stated that access to knowledge should not inhibit the remunerative rights to authors and performers. Ecuador said that it supported narrow limitations and exceptions that comply with the Berne three-step test.</p>
<p>Russia suggested the creation of a set of “general principles” underpinning this agenda item, to set a base standard agreed by everyone and begin work from that point. It noted that it was crucial to resolve the issues of cross-border sharing, legal uncertainty between countries, and digital preservation. It added that the principles could become the guiding principles for national legislation as well. <br />Pakistan, noting the COVID impact, stated that cross-border cooperation or international norm-setting could be useful. Brazil stated that there was a consensus on preservation and cross-border issues, and room for further discussions on limitations and exceptions for ‘persons with other disabilities’ under this agenda item. Chile added that international guidelines were desirable at least in the area of education, libraries, and archives.</p>
<p>In the end, Indonesia in its statement reminded everyone that there was still no concrete work plan (under this agenda) on the table. This despite the draft report indicating issues such as preservation, online uses, cross-border uses, and safe harbour as feasible for discussion on next steps. The report had also recommended formation of expert groups to study these issues further (para 400 of the report (SCCR42/2)) It added that while it was aligned to the 2012 mandate (of producing a legal instrument), the work plan could include a joint recommendation.</p>
<h3>4. Regional Consultations (as per <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report's recommendation</a>) <br /></h3>
<p>China endorsed the regional consultation. EU supported regional consultations, noting that COVID had impacted creative cultural industries as well. Pakistan stated that it was important for the consultations to include beneficiaries of this agenda item.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of Group B) questioned whether holding regional consultations were necessary during a pandemic, and later added that the regional consultations and information session exercises should not be executed together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:55:30ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session, on the limitations and exceptions agenda item.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair. </p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India. </p>
<p>The pandemic has hit the world hard, and developing countries even harder. The committee should urgently lead the way on developing concrete solutions in the domain of limitations and exceptions that are timely and meaningful. Useful suggestions have already been offered by member states in the nature of tools that could enhance cross-border cooperation and international norm setting. This could take the form of guidelines, model laws, and the like. </p>
<p>Further, the regional consultations should have proper representation and give proper weightage to views of beneficiaries of this agenda item. WIPO should also plan to institute measures to enable proper participation, in view of the digital divide</p>
<p dir="ltr">It should further be borne in mind that there exists wide socio-economic disparity in the region, and there has traditionally been a strong reliance by students and researchers on knowledge generated in foreign countries. Thus a lack of international harmonisation of limitations and exceptions disproportionately affects developing countries. These limitations and exceptions need to urgently address cross-border uses, online uses, and digital preservation to create the maximum developmental impact.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-06-29T13:20:59ZBlog EntryUpdate on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india
<b>Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021. </b>
<p>This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed
against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd,
Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.</p>
<p>In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to
stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it
allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to
remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did
not appear before the court.</p>
<p>Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is
at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy
organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to
not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of
the websites.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/rsidd120/status/1347227162395303939">One</a>
of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public
health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the <em>only</em>
access to educational and research materials for a big community of
Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have
become indispensable during the pandemic.</p>
<p>This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had <a href="http://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Publication_of_Literature.pdf">advocated</a>
for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as
recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/the-sti-policy-proposes-a-transformative-open-access-approach-for-india/">current draft</a>
science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the
monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and
their crippling impact in the Indian context.</p>
<p>They further argue that since the use of the websites is for
research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair
dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have
the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material
for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the
DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and
jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.</p>
<p>In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the
case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear
all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still
remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been
served properly yet.</p>
<p>At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement
(not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared
some thoughts on the case in an interview <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/interview-alexandra-elbakyan-sci-hub-elsevier-academic-publishing-open-access/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have
implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the
statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on
circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to
toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS
Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on
exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic
publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.</p>
<p>The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research
needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first
time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing
country.</p>
<p><em>Note:</em> For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this <a href="https://osf.io/6yph7/">document</a> prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.</p>
<p>Access the article on InfoJustice <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/42977">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeCourt Case2021-04-28T17:28:47ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 1
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1) transparency in SCCR work 2) limitations and exceptions 3) addressing the object of protection and overbroad scope of rights in the draft treaty text. </b>
<ul><li>
<h2>Agenda Item: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations</h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-2d7fdecc-7fff-4eac-fbe0-71dde65e7c7e" dir="ltr">1. Opacity around informal work on the broadcasting treaty agenda</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa and Chile shared their disappointment on the lack of transparency of informal meetings on the treaty text, and urged for greater openness. The informal meetings were conducted between WIPO and an ad hoc group of countries known as ‘Friends of the (SCCR) Chair’. This group currently includes Argentina, Colombia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the United States of America. The group met in April and June 2021, but Indonesia questioned whether there was a mandate for it in the first place.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia and Pakistan requested for further updates on the status of the treaty text from the WIPO SCCR Chair and Vice-Chair, especially as an outcome of the informal work. The two delegations also noted the lack of diversity and imbalance in representation in the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group. Pakistan noted that this agenda item had always had a diversity of viewpoints, and that this new mechanism was reductive and not inclusive. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The WIPO SCCR Chair’s and Vice-Chair’s response was that the ‘Friends of the Chair’ mechanism was adopted to do inter-sessional work (work between two SCCRs), in a flexible and less-time consuming manner. The Chair added that the group was <a href="https://www.wipo.int/tad/en/activitydetails.jsp?id=19871">created</a> in 2019 (i.e in the previous Chair's term). However, it should be noted that the group was created only for an “exceptional informal intersessional meeting” with the objective to “brainstorm on possible ways to make progress on the draft treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations in view of the upcoming WIPO General Assembly and the 40th session of the SCCR which will be held in October.” Indonesia made a request to join this group, which was denied by the Chair. The Chair only assured that the concerns raised will be addressed.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">2. <span id="docs-internal-guid-645b82b3-7fff-f227-a130-9f6cbd693337">Support for adding better limitations and exceptions to the treaty text</span></h3>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-454df1d1-7fff-9cba-a70c-49e468c21149" dir="ltr">South Africa emphasised on the critical role of broadcasting organisations in transmitting information and knowledge, and cautioned that the treaty text should be balanced and not negatively impact access to information, culture and education. Iran (speaking on behalf of Asia-pacific group) highlighted the public interest stakes in the treaty and stated that the way forward was to ensure that no layer of rights is created which might affect the right to access information. Chile also was in favour of a more balanced approach that should include limitations and exceptions. Indonesia and Pakistan added that limitations and exceptions in the current text need to be addressed more properly, as they are essential provisions for digital preservation, online use and research.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">3. A<span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592">lternative legal solutions to address broadcast piracy </span></h3>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592"></span>Canada highlighted how in its national law it provides signal protection and combats piracy without granting exclusive rights to broadcasters on transmission.</p>
<ul><li>
<h2 dir="ltr">Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-307d14ca-7fff-cec0-6174-8c8b1db618ec" dir="ltr">1. Support for Limitations and Exceptions agenda item</h3>
<p dir="ltr">India noted the importance of the limitations and exceptions agenda for the benefit of the work of libraries, archives, museums, and educational and research institutions, and shared its support for the agenda item.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-06-29T13:40:49ZBlog EntryGlobal Civil Society Coalition launches website to promote Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge
<b></b>
<p>CIS is a part of a global civil society coalition that is working to promote access to, and use of, knowledge - the Access to Knowledge or A2K coalition. <br /><br />Earlier this week, the coalition launched a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/">website</a> articulating its mission and recommendations to reform copyright systems for the benefit of education, research, and cultural heritage. <br /><br />Copyright systems pose serious obstacles to quality teaching and learning, researchers’ ability to receive and impart information and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and preservation and access of cultural and scientific heritage. The website presents evidence and legal solutions, with a focus on the digital and online dimension to the issues. Three global maps also show the (limited) extent to which copyright limitations and exceptions across the world support online education, text and data mining, and preservation, highlighting the need for global legal eform. <br /><br />The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/about/">members of the A2K coalition</a> represent a diverse set of voices such as educators, researchers, students, libraries, archives, museums, other knowledge users and creative communities around the globe. In Asia-pacific, we have ourselves and Open Access India as members presently. <strong>We invite organizations who share a similar vision of a fair and balanced copyright system to join the coalition.</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledgemovements2022-10-12T12:05:03ZBlog EntryViews on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international
<b>On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6).
Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage.
Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.</b>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon, everyone.</p>
<p>My presentation will be in reference to the revised
consolidated text <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_36/sccr_36_6.pdf">SCCR 36/6</a> and the US proposal <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">SCCR 37/7</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of
rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional –
satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter
signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related
rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.</p>
<p>The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their
programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create
an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities.
This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet
streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail
protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting
organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the
treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by
acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the
current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start
up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step.
And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in
other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m
trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of
broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.</p>
<p>My
co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building
of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an
affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we
urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and
exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept
that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for
countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the
Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an
expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look
who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El
Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international
standard.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">US delegation’s proposal</a>, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of
limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting
organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against
piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does
not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the
proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights
for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations –
organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our
times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.</p>
<p>At a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29025">seminar</a> on this very
treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the
problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this
neighbouring right. He said that the
justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of
disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for
gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had
gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not
account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the
proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing
between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been
raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it
cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil
society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another
practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations
from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it
technically possible to do that?</p>
<p>To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms
need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared
across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and
exceptions is urgently needed. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29234">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingWIPO2018-11-29T10:48:40ZBlog Entry37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28. </b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society
organisation based in India working on issues of openness and
access to knowledge, amongst others.</p>
<p>India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on
and promoting access to research, data, archival material,
educational material, and developing material to benefit persons
with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an
excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with
various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate
concrete principles that should inform the international legal
instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.</p>
<p>To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and
discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to
make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the
secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society
to identify and invite such community leaders.</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-11-29T10:20:13ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 4, May 31. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>We have concerns about the plan’s focus on MOOCs and distance
learning initiatives. Although they are related to increasing access to education,
these initiatives are hardly a substitute for classroom learning – and the
primary objective of the treaty should be to improve such classroom teaching,
especially for developing countries where ICT penetration remains quite low.
Unless the plan also chooses to develop Open Educational Resources as a
priority in connection with MOOCs and distance learning initiatives, we suggest
that this item in the plan be re-examined in light of other more beneficial
action items.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:46:45ZBlog Entry