Centre for Internet and Society

Technical Alternative to Encrypted Media Extensions

gupta — 2016-10-20T00:16:05Z

This post is an analysis of the various technical alternatives to EME (encyrpted media extensions) that have emerged from the discussions at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). These alternatives and the proposed EME specification along six dimensions are examined.

Introduction

Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) are a draft specification^{^[1]} to standardize digital rights management (DRM) for audio and video at the browser level. The specification has been very controversial in the software community since it was first drafted in 2012. It was proposed by content providers and streaming service operators to ensure that content delivered to legitimate users is inaccessible to pirates. However, the proposed solution raised salient questions about interoperability, privacy, accessibility and implementation in Free and Open Source (FOSS) software.

Several parties have, over the course of the discussion at W3C, proposed several alternate technical alternatives. This report aims to analyze these alternatives and the proposed EME specification along six dimensions; technical copy protection, legal copy protection, interoperability/entry barriers for browsers, privacy, accessibility, and user security.

Aims of the Specification

Make it technically hard for a malicious user to pirate a particular media

Have sufficient legal barriers to deter infringement

At the same time:

Ensure interoperability and make sure there are no entry barriers for new browsers
Protect privacy of users
Make sure the system doesn’t bring about security vulnerability
Maintain accessibility for a person with disabilities

Metrics of Comparison

Technological Copy Protection

During the transfer of video content from the web server of the content provide to the user, there are multiple points where a malicious entity can capture the copyrighted content.

We classify the technical strength of a DRM system depending on the point in transition where the capture can take place. Assuming the server is itself secure, the first point where the adversary can capture the media is during the transition from the server to the user’s device. Preventing such kind of interception is a standard problem and is in solved by the use of HTTPS. After the media stream reaches the device of the intended user, she can capture the before it is played on the media software. For example, in case of images or text, the user can usually save the media without the need of any special software or specialized technique. So the next step from content providers side is build restrictions in the software playing the media. The usual way to do this is by making sure that the media can be played only on certain software which doesn’t allow the user to copy the media. The software restrictions can be implemented using arbitrary codecs, scrambling or encryption. Technical restrictions at software level are always prone to be captured by screen capturing softwares, and hardware emulators which appears as output devices to media software but are used to save the media instead. To prevent capturing at software level there exists technologies such as HDCP^{^[2]} which protects the media during its transition from the media software to the output device. Although such technologies are also fallible to a user holding a video camera in front of the monitor. This weakness of the DRM systems is known as Analog Hole.

Technological Copy Protection is:

High: Infringer needs specialized hardware to capture the copyrighted content.
Medium: Infringer needs specialized Software to capture the copyrighted content
Low: Infringer needs only commonly available software and hardware to capture the copyrighted content

Copy Protection (Legal)

Jurisdictions across the world have laws which make it illegal to circumvent technological protections methods for the protections of Copyright. The most famous of them is the Section 1201 of the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For content providers who wish to use TPMs to prevent piracy of their copyrighted work, these laws provide additional layers of protection. DMCA disallows circumventing a technical measure which effectively control access to copyrighted work, also it disallows the “manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component” which is primarily designed to circumvent a DRM. .^{^[3]}

Legal protection against infringement is high in DRM system if:

High: Circumventing the DRM and creating tools to enable that is illegal unconditionally
Medium: Circumventing the DRM and creating tools to enable that is illegal depending the intent and circumstances
Low: Circumventing the DRM and creating tools to enable that is legal.

Security

DRM systems have been criticized for leaving users’ devices vulnerable.

Security of a user using the DRM system is:

High: The system don’t require any elevated permissions
Medium: The system only requires elevated software permissions
Low: The system requires both elevated hardware or software permission

Privacy

Privacy of user using the DRM systems is:

High: The system doesn’t collect minimal information
Medium: The system only collects non personally identifiable information
Low: The system collects personally identifiable information

Accessibility

DRM systems can turn out to be problematic for providing accessibility for disabled persons. In case of video service can be made accessible by providing access to closed captions for a video and by modifying the stream to make it accessible to color blind people. However, a DRM system could present unnecessary barriers for people trying to provide accessibility solutions. There can be technical barrier in the process of handling the video stream

W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) suggested following guidelines to maintain accessibility in Encrypted Media Extensions:^{^[4]}

ensuring that media content may be redirected to certain system services
ensuring that every piece of digital content is available in its original form (for example, subtitles are not blended into video, etc)
ensuring that standard operations (adjusting contrast, using third-party subtitles or audio-stream) may be applied to restricted media
ensuring that restricted media from different sources provided by different EME systems (for example, video from one source and sign-language interpretation of that video from another source) may be used simultaneously

We say accessibility in a DRM system is:

High: If all the of the guidelines are met
Medium: If two more points in the guideline are met
Low: If less than points of the guideline are met

Interoperability

Interoperability of any system is important to keep the entry barriers low for a new producer to enter the market. Interoperability of a DRM system for browsers is:

High: The full spec is available for implementation on royalty free basis
Medium: The full spec is not available, but can be implemented through reverse engineering without legal barriers.
Low: Third parties may restrict new browsers from implementing the spec through legal means.

Specifications

EME Specification

EME specification only defines the javascript component of the system and the large component called Content Decryption Module(CDM) is left undefined. The CDM can be hardware based using technologies like HDCP, which prevents screen capture. The CDM can be software based and can return the decrypted video to the browser to render, or it can use its own media stream and render it by itself. Most of the CDMs in use are proprietary but there can exist CDMs which are fully specified and are open source. The implications for copy protection, privacy, accessibility and security depends on the CDM used. Interoperability of EME spec is very low because there are not only technical barriers due lack of full specification but also legal barriers as browsers may need to get into a contract with the dominant CDM providers to add support for their CDM.

Obfuscation (Arbitrary Codec)

Charles Pritchard pointed out the HTML5 video specification is codec agnostic, hence the content providers can stream the media using an arbitrary codec which only supported by the media provider.^{^[5]} So even if the user captures the video stream it cannot be pirated without reverse engineering the codec. Although reverse engineering is usually allowed by DRM laws hence the legal protection is low.^{^[6]} Since the codec support is provided through OS, there is no need to modify the browser and the system can be supported by any browser without any technical or legal barriers.

HTTPS and JS encryption

Tab Atkins proposed using JS encryption using browser and <video> element^{^[7]}. Since the technique requires the a malicious user to implement the full <video> spec to decrypt the video, the scheme provides moderate technical copy protection.

Encryption using video tag

According to David Singer encrypted video can be played through the existing <video> tags where the content file says its content-ID and is marked as protected, someone who has the DRM to play the content installed and has brought the keys to play it can watch the video.^{^[8]} As a concrete example he talked about protected .m4p audio files from iTunes library, which plays just fine on Safari.^{^[9]}

Plugin System (Flash)

Existing plugin system, mainly Flash is be used to as a technical measure to prevent copyright infringement. It is more interoperable than EME because any browser with a correct implementation of NPAPI can provide support for Flash^{^[10]}.

Technical Alternative	Copy Protection Technical	Interoperability	Copy Protection Legal	Accessibility	Privacy	Security
Obfuscation (Arbitrary Codec)	Medium	High	Low	Depends on Implementation Details	High	High
Encryption using video tag	Medium to High^{^[11]}	Medium	High	Depends on Implementation Details	Depends on Implementation Details	Depends on Implementation Details
HTTPS and JS decryption	Medium	High	High	Depends on Implementation Details	High^{^[12]}	High
EME	Depends on CDM^{^[13]}	Low	High	Depends on CDM	Depends on CDM	Depends on CDM
Plugin (Flash)	High^{^[14]}	Medium	Medium	Medium^{^[15]}	Low^{^[16]}	Low

^{^[1]}Encrypted Media Extensions W3C Candidate Recommendation https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/. For a general overview see https://hsivonen.fi/eme/

^{^[2]} HDCP Whitepaper, https://web.archive.org/web/20080920191718/http://www.digital-cp.com/files/documents/04A897FD-FEF1-0EEE-CDBB649127F79525/HDCP_deciphered_070808.pdf

^{^[3]} Section 1201, US Digital Millennium Copyright Act

^{^[4]} https://github.com/w3ctag/eme/blob/master/EME%20Proposal.md#accessibility-1

^{^[5]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0328.html

^{^[6]} Section 1201, Digital Millennium Copyright Act

^{^[7]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0456.html

^{^[8]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0422.html

^{^[9]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0433.html

^{^[10]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0427.html

^{^[11]} Using HDCP is possible with compatible hardware

^{^[12]} The implementation itself doesn’t require additional cookies

^{^[13]} The Spec allows CDMs which do not act as DRM, but the content providers may not support them.

^{^[14]} Adobe’s new Flash DRM comes with selective output control

http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05/adobes-new-flash-drm-comes-with-selective-output-control

^{^[15]} Flash Player provides some accessibility functionalities https://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flash/captions.html

^{^[16]} Soltani, Ashkan and Canty, Shannon and Mayo, Quentin and Thomas, Lauren and Hoofnagle, Chris Jay, Flash Cookies and Privacy (August 10, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1446862 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1446862

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/technical-alternative-to-encrypted-media-extensions

Tech-savvy students given tips to enter IT field

praskrishna — 2014-02-02T16:48:47Z

Students from any academic background, but having computer knowledge and common sense, can land a job in the IT sector, said U B Pavanaja, programme officer (Indian languages) at Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore).

The article published by the Times of India on January 31, 2014, quotes Dr. U.B. Pavanaja.

Conducting a session on 'How to get placed in IT sector' organized by Centre for Proficiency Development and Placement services (CPDPS) here on Thursday, he said: "Students of any stream can be an expert in the IT sector. But (s)he must be well aware about IT sector and should stay updated to sustain there," he said, adding: "The ever-growing IT sector offers many opportunities. Around 90 lakh job opportunities are created every year. The sector's contribution to the nation's economy stands at 7.5%."

Speaking on the pre-requisites to land jobs, Pavanaja said: "One need not necessarily have high technical skills for that. All they need is an ability to work on the required skills."

"IT is being applied in almost all fields. Graduates and PU or diploma holders can also land jobs in IT. Those having writing skills, and also having minimum computer knowledge, can also be hired as content writers," he said, citing examples.

Speaking on mobile technology and its applications, he said, "Nearly 70% of 'likes' on a popular video-sharing website are done through cellphones. Mobile technology is a fast developing sector. Numerous applications are being developed and added on a regular basis. Compared to software, mobile apps are ease and less expensive to develop. With good knowledge, mobile apps can be developed even at home."

CPDPS director Niranajana Vanalli said the talk was organized to help IT job aspirants be industry-ready.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-january-31-2014-tech-savvy-students-given-tips-to-enter-it-field

Tech Talk: Landscape of Wireless Communications & Electromagnetic Spectrum

praskrishna — 2014-05-07T08:12:54Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcomes you to a talk by A. Radha Krishna on April 28, 2014, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. at its office in Bangalore.

Radha Krishna's talk will focus on:

The various wireless communication technologies like Bluetooth, Zigbee, Zwave, WiFi, IoT, HomeRF, RFid, NFC, RuBee, connected car, V2V, V2I, V2R, 2G, 3G, 4G, x10, Insteon, JenNetIP, Wireless USB, microwave communication, satellite communication, Iridium, ameture radio, DVB-T, H/NGH, SH, AM, FM, NTSC, TV-Band Devices, cordless phones, RC toys, remote door lock of cars, etc.
Touch upon lasers and fiber optic communications.
Discuss licensed/unlicensed/reserved bands of electromagnetic spectrum.
Some of the challenges to use other frequencies of electromagnetic spectrum.

A. Radha Krishna

A. Radha Krishna is an Architect working in Alcatel-Lucent with 15 years of experience in embedded, consumer electronics, and telecom domains. He is also a long time Wikimedian and acted as Wikimedia Bangalore SIG chair for about 1.5 years. He is also part of NASSCOM initiative to reduce the gap of skills of Engineering students to Industry need. He is working on a Telecom course which could be part of curriculum in Engineering colleges all over India from 2015.

Presentation Material

View more presentations by Radha Krishna here.

Snacks and high tea will be served at 5.00 p.m.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/tech-talk-landscape-of-wireless-communications-and-electromagnetic-spectrum

Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia

vishnu — 2014-12-28T04:04:47Z

This course is conceived by CIS-A2K. It is currently envisaged as an add-on Certificate Course jointly offered by CIS-A2K and the Nirmala Institute of Education (NIE)-a premier teacher training establishment in Goa, India.

Read the original on Wikipedia page here.

Problem Statement

In India and in other developing countries a lot of emphasis is being laid of late on the use of ICT for improvement of literacy and education.

Massive efforts are afoot by the Government of India, provincial governments within each state, civil society organizations and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives to include ICT (especially digital technology and the internet) into the teaching learning process. Most of these approaches are techno-utopian and think that giving a tablet to a child will automatically transform the learning environment.

Thus, substantial focus is on either technology or digital content creation (lesson plans, etc.) and almost singularly focussed on the student. There is very little done to empower or train the teachers on how to use digital technology in the classroom. When teachers are not equipped to deal with a digital classroom, use of digital technology is not optimised.

There are instances where the students were given free laptops or tablets by the government and the teachers banned their use in the classroom. Is the average Indian teacher equipped to handle a class of students who are always gazing at their screens?

How will an average Indian teacher approach a class with access to Wikipedia? Do we need to re-imagine the classroom? If yes, how? Consequently, do we need to re-imagine the role of the teacher in the age of Wikipedia?

How does this course attempt to address this problem?

This course is a small step in the direction of empowering the teacher trainees (mostly digital immigrants) to get a grasp on how the digital and internet has changed our mode of learning and approach to knowledge. It will show the macro and bird's eye view of how we have moved on from a Tree of Knowledge to a Web of Knowledge. The course will also introduce them to practical experiments that are being done within the Indian and global context and to also critically evaluate the relevance of a digital knowledge platform like Wikipedia.

Background

The knowledge production, consumption, dissemination and distribution is undergoing a tectonic shift with the advent of digital technologies. Within this context of the digital turn, openness and transparency have gained new significance.

On the one hand, emerging participatory knowledge production models of openness like Wikipedia are increasingly pushing us to look beyond the traditional models of the past century; on the other hand, these models are being thought of to be effective in diverse fields like pedagogy, governance and policy making.

This has been impacting the way how teaching and learning happens at the school level. Open Educational Resources for instance is becoming a key asset for the students and educational institutions alike in imagining better pedagogy models.

This creates a pre-condition for the transformation of society into a ‘Knowledge Society’, wherein the student is increasingly repositioned from a ‘spectator’ to a ‘spect-actor’, from a consumer of knowledge to a “prosumer” (producer+consumer) of knowledge.

Within this context it becomes crucial that the teacher (a key pillar to building a robust knowledge society) is familiarized with the working of digital technology, especially within the context of the classroom.

Course Objectives

This certificate course is aimed at Teacher trainees and Teachers who teach up to High school in India. This course will give the Teacher participant:

a comprehensive understanding of the changes that are brought about by digital technology to the knowledge domain
an introduction to various openness movements that have informed the discourse on Open Educational Resources
exposure and training to participate on open knowledge platforms like Wikipedia
practical examples and best practices of using Wikipedia and sister projects within the classroom context.

Key Concepts

Digital, Digital literacy, FOSS, Internet, Knowledge, Knowledge Platforms, Mirrored Technology, Openness, Open Access, Open Educational Resources, Open-Data, Sugar, Wiki, Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikitionary, Wikimedia Commons.

Course Design

The course will approach each of these issues within the context of Indian languages and school education, so that the teacher could take back the learning to his or her immediate pedagogic environment. The course will be delivered through lectures, demonstrations and hands-on training sessions. Every participant is expected to do 2 hours of pre-course work before coming for the first contact session. The face to face contact sessions will be done in two rounds with a gap of less than 40 days in between Round 1 and Round 2. The participant is expected to spend approximately 13 hours working on a real-time project with digital output.

Duration

This course involves 45 hours of effort.

30 hours face to face contact sessions
15 hours virtual contact

Resources

YouTube: Hindi Video Tutorials Play-list - FEEL FREE TO DOWNLOAD, REDISTRIBUTE AND REMIX THESE VIDEOS AS THEY ARE LICENSED UNDER CC-BY-SA 3.0.
YouTube: Kannada Video Tutorials Play-list - FEEL FREE TO DOWNLOAD, REDISTRIBUTE AND REMIX THESE VIDEOS AS THEY ARE LICENSED UNDER CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Registration

Step 1: All participants are expected to register themselves on Wikipedia. Please note that once you register on a Wikipedia project, you can use that 'Username' (i.e. same log-in details) across all Wikipedias and Wikimedia platforms. This should be done by September 4, 2014 (10.00 am). This tutorial will help you with Registration on Wikipedia: Registration Tutorial
Step 2: Once you create a Wikipedia user id, please fill up this form to complete the registration process.

Above: Flyer of the course to be held in November 2014 and January 2015

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/teaching-in-age-of-wikipedia

Tallapaka Pada Sahityam is now on Wikisource

Pavan Santhosh — 2017-07-10T13:44:41Z

Tallapaka Pada Sahityam, a compilation of over fourteen thousand Telugu compositions is now available on Wikisource. Tallapaka Annamacharya was a 15th-century Hindu saint and composer who was renowned for singing in praise of Lord Venkateswara. The Tallapaka lineage began with him, giving rise to many bards in the Telugu language from the family. The Tallapaka Pada Sahityam is a compilation of three generations of Tallapaka poets: Tallapaka Annamacharya, Tallapaka Peda Tirumalacharya, and Tallapaka China Tirumalacharya. This compilation, published by Annamayya Library, Guntur has been uploaded by the library on Wikisource as part of their efforts to digitize the library archives. These lyrical works, dealing with a variety of themes, are of immense literary and cultural significance to Telugu speakers the world over.

Owing to the large size of the file donated by the library, the works need to be separated into 29 volumes. These separated files would be uploaded and indexed on Commons as well. A Unicode version of the work needs to be published and proofread in addition to their print version. Telugu Wikimedians are also exploring the possiblity of re-licensing recitations of the poems by literary connoisseurs. On 9 June, an orientation of these activities was conducted for long time Telugu Wikipedia, te:user:శ్రీరామమూర్తి, who has begun publishing Unicode text and proof-reading on Telugu Wikisource.

The link to the work is here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Tallapaka_pada_sahityam.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tallapaka-pada-sahityam-is-now-on-wikisource

Talk on bringing 1000 books about the culture of Maharashtra on Marathi Wikipedia

subha — 2020-05-02T16:39:00Z

Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha, a Pune based non-profit that was founded in Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade and colleagues in 1894, has recently announced to digitise their 1000 volumes of books centred around Peshwa culture. A discussion about digitising these books and making them available online on Marathi Wikisource is being organised on December 1 at the Energy Resources Institute(TERI), Bengaluru. Avinash Chaphekar, Joint Secretary of MGS will be addressing this talk.

Books published by Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha (MGS) vastly cover the Peshwa culture of Maharashtra apart from many other significant aspects of the history of Maharashtra. The books will be digitised on the Marathi-language Wikisource (mr.wikisource.org) by the Marathi Wikimedia community. Marathi Wikisource is a sister project of Marathi Wikipedia and is a free online Marathi-language library. Started in 2012, it currently houses about 800 volumes of Marathi books.

MGS was founded in Pune by Justice M. G. Ranade, Dr. Ramkrishna Bhandarkar and Lokamanya Tilak in 1894. Earlier known Deccan Vernacular Translation Society, it was renamed as Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha in 1948. The Society has a collection of invaluable literary treasure like 100 yrs old rare literary work and manuscripts, Peshwa diaries and records, Justice Ranade's correspondence, 30 thesis on various subjects and many different domains. These collections make the institution a great place for study and research. Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha (MGS) celebrated its 121st anniversary recently at Pune, MGS donated 1000 books for Marathi Wikisource so that the books could be digitised and be made available for millions of Marathi readers. Avinash Chaphekar, Joint Secretary of the organisation who will be addressing the talk that is being organised by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/discussion-on-bringing-peshwa-culture-on-marathi-wikipedia

Talamaddale on August 23

praskrishna — 2015-09-20T15:57:16Z

A talamaddale ‘Karna Chedana’ and ‘Shalya Nirgamana’ will be organised at Abhisheka mandira on the premises of Manjunatha temple at Kadri on August 23 at 2.30 p.m. Yakshagana playback singers Balipa Narayana Bhagawatha and Puttige Raghurama Holla will take part.

Workshop

A three-day workshop on writing for Tulu Wikipedia began at Ramakrishna Pre-University College and Ramakrishna College here on Friday. Speaking on the occasion U.B. Pavanaja, Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, and a Wikipedia representative said that if a language was to sustain it should in use continuously and all information should be available in that language. Tulu also should be kept alive using modern tools of technology.

Read the original coverage published by the Hindu on August 16, 2015 here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-hindu-august-23-2015-talamaddale-on-august-23

T’puram to host Wikipedia workshop on May 4, 5

praskrishna — 2016-05-01T14:01:24Z

The workshop will be led by Prof. Madav Gadgil and a team of experienced Wikipedia editors.

Thiruvananthapuram: The Swadeshabhimani Media Study Centre jointly with the Centre for Internet and Society and the Wikipedia fraternity of Kerala, is conducting a two-day workshop on Wikipedia from 4 to 5 May at the Vakkom Moulavi Foundation Trust Hall, Thekkinmoodu. The workshop will provide guidance as how to contribute contents on Kerala or to translate pages in English on Kerala in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. The workshop will be led by Prof. Madhav Gadgil and a team of experienced Wikipedia editors.

This article was published in Mathrubhumi on May 1, 2016. Read the full article here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/mathrubhumi-may-1-2016-thiruvananthapuram-to-host-wikipedia-workshop-on-may-4-5

SVG translation workshop Kannada

gopala — 2019-06-29T07:21:15Z

The Centre for Internet & Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) organized a SVG translation workshop for Kannada Wiki community on 23-24 February 2019 in Bengaluru. The workshop was a part of SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India. Total 10 Wikipedians participated in the workshop and contributed to Wikimedia Commons.

SVG translation campaign 2019 held in India from February 21, 2019 to March 31, 2019. CIS-A2K and Kannada Wikipedians conducted offline event on February 23, 2019 and February 24, 2019. This workshop planned along with Kannada community meet-up by User:Vikashedge. In Kannada Wiki SVG translation campaign was lead by User:Vikas Hedge and I (User:Gopala Krishna A). Previously Kannada Wikimedians contributed for the science related topics and that project was successful. But illustrations science related articles were in English. There was plan in translating the illustrations to Kannada. But there was no enough motivation.

Image by Gopala Krishna A [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

During SVG translation campaign workshop in the beginning of the campaign boosted energy and motivated to translate more images. During this workshop Wikipedians translated more than 80 images. This workshop was very successful workshop. On the first day the program I introduced the background of this campaign and shared the learnings from WikiGraphists Bootcamp (2018 India) which was held in Delhi in the month of September. Subsequently Vikas Hegde introduced SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India. Later I taught installing Inkscape and basic usage of Inkscape and gave introduction on basic Inkscape tools which is helpful for translation.

On second day User:Saumyaanaidu presented principles of graphic designing. Later there was hands-on session for students to understand better design principles. Later User:AnoopZ gave a quick introduction about TranslateWiki.net. CIS-A2K conducted this workshop in a very successful manner and more women participants also took part. Totally 12 participants participated in the workshop where 10 took part physically and 2 were connected online.

After this campaign Kannada community stood 5th position in India among other communities. From Kannada Wiki most Wikimedians participated and successfully translated images. Out of 12 participants 6 were female and 6 were male. From Kannada Wiki User:Vidyu44 translated images and won prizes for Kannada language.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/svg-translation-workshop-kannada-2

SVG Translation Workshop at KBC North Maharashtra University

subodh — 2019-04-26T06:47:40Z

The Centre for Internet & Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) wing organized an SVG translation workshop in collaboration with KBC North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon on 14-15 March 2019. The workshop was a part of India level campaign. Total 58 participants attended the workshop and contributed to Commons till 31 March 2019.

Background

During the edit-a-thons and thematic workshops, the need for images in Marathi was realised. Many articles on health and science have images with labels in English. The issue was discussed with few institutions. KBC University came forward to start the activity under this campaign.

Objectives

Orientation of Wikimedia projects
Localisation of SVG images
Commons upload policies and process

Facilitators

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- User: KCVelaga
Subodh Kulkarni, CIS-A2K --Subodh (CIS-A2K)
Prof. Manish Joshi, SOCS KBCNMU, Jalgaon -- Joshmanish
Dr. Snehalata B. Shirude, SOCS KBCNMU, Jalgaon --Snehalata Shirude

Agenda

Introduction to Wikimedia projects, Marathi Wikipedia, Commons
Account creation, basic editing skills
Copyrights, Commons upload process
Graphics images, types of formats, features
Installation of fonts, Inkscape
Resources for translation, verification before uploads
Selection of images, tags, categories for upload
Using translated images in local Wikipedia

Report

As the participants were not aware of Wikimedia projects, the first two sessions dedicated to an introduction to various projects. The participants opened accounts on a smartphone and created user pages after logging in on computers. They were introduced to basic skills in Wikipedia editing, giving references/wiki links and adding images from Commons. The Commons platform was explained in detail. The missing images in Marathi language articles and Commons as well were shown. The discussion on these topics resulted in understanding the need for SVG translation exercise.

The next session was to download and install the necessary software on each computer. The participants installed Google Input Tools for Marathi typing and also Inkscape. Before translating images on Inkscape, the students first practised Marathi typing on their sandboxes. After this, the main graphics sessions were conducted. Krishna explained various types of formats, differences between raster and vector graphics, the importance of SVGs and actual SVG file translation process. He demonstrated the process for images with different difficulty levels. They were introduced to resources available as a part of the campaign for SVG translation and necessary techniques. The usage of various online resources like encyclopedia and thesaurus available was also explained. The images were selected and working tags were applied by the participants. The faculty facilitated the process of work distribution among the students. The participants were able to upload 100+ images on the first day.

Pictured above: Students from Day 1 helping others on Day 2 (Picture by Subodh Kulkarni)

On Day 2, around 20 participants newly joined the workshop. This group comprised of teachers, journalists, doctors, and other enthusiastic citizens. Active students from Day 1 facilitated the training of this new batch. Having conducted a session on the previous day greatly helped to facilitate this session easily. The experienced teachers and citizens helped others to get correct translations and terms. This boosted the speed of the work. The images were also used in the articles on Marathi Wikipedia.

With the help of science teachers, the images were verified before uploading to Commons. Due to active participatory work on the second day, the total images crossed 200 mark. The students continued to contribute till last day of campaign i.e. 31 March. At the end, due to consistent work Marathi category reached the highest number with a total of 357 images among all Indian languages. The workshop and further work was well organized and motivated by Prof. Manish Joshi and Prof. Snehalata Shirude from Computer Science department.

Link to the Wikipedia page report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/subodh-kulkarni-april-10-2019-svg-translation-workshop-at-kbc-north-maharashtra-university

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Report

Gopala Krishna A — 2019-05-01T05:04:24Z

CIS-A2K team submitted Project Tiger final report.

Background

In 2017–2018, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Google collaborated to start a pilot project in India, working closely with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN). This project, titled Project Tiger was aimed at encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. The name Project Tiger was chosen to reflect the Indian metaphor of a tiger representing a strong, or brave person (Baagh in Hindi, Puli in Tamil, etc).

Through this project, support was provided to active and experienced Wikipedia editors in the form of Chromebook donations, and stipends for Internet access. Additionally, a three-month-long editathon was conducted, as well as a language-based contest on Indic Wikipedia that aimed at addressing existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Needs Assessment

As a part of Project Tiger, CIS-A2K facilitated a needs assessment process in the month of December 2017, prompting a large number of responses between December 2017 and March 2018. Among these, the highest percentage of responses came from Wikimedians who were associated with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. A notable percentage of responses came from students. Among 190 responses, it was found that 16% of users edit Wikimedia projects on mobile phones. Additionally, out of 189 users, 51.85% said they use laptops for editing. 73 users reported that they share their devices with others to make contributions.

Our learnings from this process are:

150 users who contribute to Wikipedia belong to the age groups of 20-35 and 35-50. Younger community members can consistently bring in more contributions and have a sustainable presence within the community. Supporting these young Wikimedians is very important.

Users with personal devices can make more contributions to Wikipedia than those without them. Sharing devices between users is a barrier to maximising contributions.

Most users are genuinely interested in contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.
There is a requirement for skill development activities (Writing skills, tools, gadgets) within the Indian Wikimedia community. Skills development will directly result in increased contribution to Wikimedia projects. Additionally, Wikimedians also showed interest in obtaining easier access to books, journals, etc.

Chromebook Distribution

CIS-A2K received a large number of requests for Chromebooks and access to the Internet from community members CIS-A2K observed 271 requests for laptop and internet access (including draft requests, requests from IP address, and withdrawn requests by applicants).

In the first round of responding to these requests, 26 requests were answered with support. 11 of these 26 Chromebook recipients are female Wikipedians. In the second round of responses, CIS-A2K supported 24 requests. In just two rounds all Chromebooks were distributed among the users. Total Chromebooks are delivered are 50. The first stage of distribution involved delivery of Chromebooks to Odia Wikimedian Ssgapu22. Subsequently, we prepared a help document intended to make the Chromebooks convenient to use for Indian Wikipedians. Then the Chromebooks were transported to the recipients, either by courier (35–40 Chromebooks), or in person by community advocates at events. CIS-A2K has successfully shipped Chromebooks even to rural areas in India including the border areas of West Bengal. CIS-A2K has made a final third list which serves as a waiting list, with 25 pending requests that are open for support. Support via Chromebooks has created a noticeable increase in all forms of contributions by Wikimedians to the Wikimedia projects.

Read the complete report published on Wikipedia page

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/supporting-indian-language-wikipedias-program-report

Supporting Indian Community 2018: Needs Assessment

tito — 2019-02-06T21:46:14Z

The Wikimedia Foundation and Google worked in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. Here is the needs-assessment report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/supporting-indian-community-2018-needs-assessment

Super Cassettes v. MySpace (Redux)

sinha — 2017-01-18T14:31:25Z

The latest judgment in the matter of Super Cassettes v. MySpace is a landmark and progressive ruling, which strengthens the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by Internet intermediaries in India. It interprets the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to restore safe harbor immunity to intermediaries even in the case of copyright claims. It also relieves MySpace from pre-screening user-uploaded content, endeavouring to strike a balance between free speech and censorship. CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment.

On 23rd December 2016, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Deepa Sharma of the Delhi High Court delivered a decision overturning the 2012 order in the matter of Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. MySpace. The 2012 order was heavily criticized, for it was agnostic to the technological complexities of regulating speech on the Internet and cast unfathomable burdens on MySpace. In the following post I summarise the decision of the Division Bench. Click here to read the judgment.

Brief Facts

In 2007, Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) filed a suit against MySpace, a social networking platform, alleging copyright infringement against MySpace. The platform allowed users to upload and share media files, inter alia, and it was discovered that users were sharing SCIL’s copyrighted works sans authorisation. SCIL promptly proceeded to file a civil suit against MySpace for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51(a)(ii).

The 2012 order was extremely worrisome as it had turned the clock several decades back on concepts of internet intermediary liability. The court had held MySpace liable for copyright infringement despite it having shown no knowledge about specific instances of infringement; that it removed infringing content upon complaints; and that Super Cassettes had failed to submit songs to MySpace's song ID database. The most impractical burden of duty that the court pronounced was that MySpace was required to pre-screen content, rather than relying on post-infringement measures to remove infringing content. This was a result of interpreting due diligence to include pre-screening.

The court injuncted MySpace from permitting any uploads of SCIL's copyrighted content, and directed to expeditiously execute content removal requests. To read CIS' analysis of the Single Judge's interim order, click here.

In the instant judgment, the bench limited their examination to MySpace’s liability for secondary infringement, and left the direct infringement determination to the Single Judge at the subsequent trial stage. In doing so, the court answered the following three questions:

1) Whether MySpace could be said to have knowledge of infringement so as to attract liability for secondary infringement under Section 51(a)(ii)?

No. According to the Court, in the case of internet intermediaries, section 51(a)(ii) contemplates actual knowledge and not general awareness.

Elaborating re the circumstances of the case, the Court held that to attract liability for secondary infringement, MySpace should have had actual knowledge and not mere awareness of the infringement. Appreciating the difference between virtual and physical worlds, the judgment stated “the nature of internet media is such that the interpretation of knowledge cannot be the same as that is used for a physical premise.”

As per the court, the following facts only amounted to a general awareness, which was not sufficient to establish secondary liability:

Existence of user agreement terms which prohibited users from unauthorised uploading of content;
Operation of post-infringement mechanisms instituted by MySpace to identify and remove content;
SCIL sharing a voluminous catalogue of 100,000 copyrighted songs with MySpace, expecting the latter to monitor and quell any infringement;
Modifying videos to insert ads in them: SCIL contended that MySpace invited users to share and upload content which it would use to insert ads and make revenues – and this amounted to knowledge. The Court found that video modification for ad insertion only changed the format of the video and not the content; further, it was a pure automated process and there was no human intervention.

Additionally, no constructive knowledge could be attributed to MySpace to demonstrate reasonable ground for believing that infringement had occurred. A reasonable belief could emerge only after MySpace had perused all the content uploaded and shared on its platform – a task that was impossible to perform due to the voluminous catalogue handed to it and existing technological limitations.

The Court imposed a duty on SCIL to specify the works in which it owned copyright and being shared without authorisation on MySpace. It held that merely giving names of all content it owned without expressly pointing out the infringing works was contrary to the established principles of copyright law. Further, MySpace contended and the judge agreed, that in many instances the works were legally shared by distributors and performers – and often users created remixed works which only bore semblance to the title of the copyright work.

In such cases it becomes even more important for a plaintiff such as MySpace to provide specific titles, because while an intermediary may remove the content fearing liability and damages, an authorized individual’s license and right to fair use will suffer or stand negated. (Para 38 in decision)

Thus, where as MySpace undoubtedly permitted a place of profit for communication of infringing works uploaded by users, it did not have specific knowledge, nor reasonable belief of the infringement.

2) Does proviso to Section 81 override the "safe harbor" granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000?

and

3) Whether it was possible to harmoniously read and interpret Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act?

No, the proviso does not override the safe harbor, i.e. the safe harbor defence cannot be denied to the intermediary in the case of copyright actions.The three sections have to be read harmoniously, indeed.

The judgment referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report as a relevant tool in interpreting the two provisions, declaring that the rights conferred under the IT Act, 2000 are supplementary and not in derogation of the Patents Act or the Copyright Act. The proviso was inserted only to permit copyright owners to demand action against intermediaries who may themselves post infringing content – the safe harbor only existed for circumstances when content was third party/user generated.

Given the supplementary nature of the provisions- one where infringement is defined and traditional copyrights are guaranteed and the other where digital economy and newer technologies have been kept in mind, the only logical and harmonious manner to interpret the law would be to read them together. Not doing so would lead to an undesirable situation where intermediaries would be held liable irrespective of their due diligence. (Para 49 in decision)

Regarding section 79, the court reiterated that the section only granted a limited immunity to intermediaries by granting a measured privilege to an intermediary, which was in the nature of an affirmative defence and not a blanket immunity to avoid liability. The very purpose of section 79 was to regulate and limit this liability; where as the Copyright Act granted and controlled rights of a copyright owner.

The Court found Judge Whyte’s decision in Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom Online Communication Services (1995), to be particularly relevant to the instant case, and agreed with its observations. To recall, Netcom was the landmark US ruling which established that when a subscriber was responsible for direct infringement, and the service providers did nothing more than setting up and operating tech systems which were necessary for the functioning of the Internet, it was illogical to impute liability on the service provider.

On MySpace Complying with Safe Harbor Requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 (and Intermediary Rules, 2011)

The court held that MySpace's operations were in compliance with section 79(2)(b). The content transmission was initiated at the behest of the users, the recipients were not chosen by MySpace, neither was there modification of content. On the issue of modification, the court reasoned that since modification was an automated process (MySpace was inserting ads) which changed the format only, without MySpace's tacit or expressed control or knowledge, it was in compliance of the legislative requirement.

Despite several safeguard tools and notice and take down regimes, infringed videos find their way. The remedy here is not to target intermediaries but to ensure that infringing material is removed in an orderly and reasonable manner. A further balancing act is required which is that of freedom of speech and privatized censorship. If an intermediary is tasked with the responsibility of identifying infringing content from non-infringing one, it could have a chilling effect on free speech; an unspecified or incomplete list may do that. (Para 62 in decision)

On the second aspect of due-diligence, the court held that Mypace complied with the due diligence procedure specified in the Rules - it published rules, regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access of usage. Reading Rule 3(4) with section 79(2)(c), the court held that it due diligence required MySpace to remove content within 36 hours of gaining actual knowledge or receiving knowledge by another person of the infringing content. If MySpace failed to take infringing content down accordingly, then only will safe harbour be denied to MySpace.

This liberal interpretation of due diligence is a big win for internet intermediaries in India.

Additional Issues Considered by the Court

MySpace also tried to defend its activities by claiming the shield of the fair dealing section of the Indian Copyright Act. However, the Court refused, stating that the fair dealing defence was inapplicable to the case as the provisions protected transient and incidental storage. Whereas, in the instant circumstances, the content in question was stored/hosted permanently.

MySpace also contended that the Single Judge's injunction order was vague and general and had foisted unimplementable duties on MySpace, disregarding the way the Internet functioned. If MySpace had to strictly comply with the order, it would have to shut its business in India. The Court said that the Single Judge's order, if enforced, would create a system of unwarranted private censorship, running contrary to the principles of a free speech regime, devoid of considerations of peculiarities of the internet intermediary industry. Private censorship would also invite upon the ISP the legal risk of wrongfully terminating a user account.

Finally, the Court urged MySpace to explore and innovate techniques to protect the interests of traditional copyright holders in a more efficient manner.

Relief Granted

Setting aside the Single Judge's order aside, the Court directed SCIL to provide a specific catalogue of infringing works which also pointed to the URL of the files. Upon receiving such specific knowledge, MySpace has been directed to remove the content within 36 hours of the issued notice. MySpace will also keep an account of the removals, and the revenues earned from ads placed for calculating damages at the trial stage.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace

Super Cassettes v. MySpace

ujwala — 2012-10-31T10:27:36Z

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Super Cassettes v. MySpace last July is worrying for a number of reasons. The court failed to appreciate the working of intermediaries online and disregard all pragmatic considerations involved. The consequences for free expression and particularly for file sharing by users of services online are especially unfavourable.

The judgment[*]is extremely worrying since it holds MySpace liable for copyright infringement, despite it having shown that it did not know, and could not have known, about each instance of infringement; that it removed each instance of alleged infringement upon mere complaint; that it asked Super Cassettes to submit their songs to their song identification database and Super Cassettes didn't.

This, in essence, means, that all 'social media services' in which there is even a potential for copyright infringement (such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are now faced with a choice of either braving lawsuits for activities of their users that they have no control over — they can at best respond to takedown requests after the infringing material has already been put up — or to wind down their operations in India.

The Facts

Aside from social networking, MySpace facilitates the sharing of content between its users. This case concerns content (whose copyright vested in T-Series) was uploaded by users to MySpace’s website. It appears that tensions between MySpace and T-Series arose in 2007, when T-Series entered into talks with MySpace to grant it licenses in its copyrighted content, while MySpace asked instead that T-Series register with its rights management programme. Neither the license nor the registration came about, and the infringing material continued to be available on the MySpace website.

Specifically, T-Series alleged that cases for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51 (a) (ii) could be made out. Alleging that MySpace had infringed its copyrights and so affected its earnings in royalties, T-Series approached the Delhi High Court and filed a suit seeking injunctive relief and damages. In proceedings for interim relief while the suit was pending, the court granted an injunction, but, in an appeal by MySpace, added the qualification that the content would have to be taken down only on receipt of a specific catalogue of infringing works available on MySpace, rather than a general list of works in which T-Series held a copyright.

The Defence

While other arguments such as one around the jurisdiction of the court were also raised, the central issues are listed below:

Non-Specificity of Prayer
T-Series’ claim in the suit is for a blanket injunction on copyrighted content on the MySpace website. This imposes a clearly untenable, even impossible, burden for intermediaries to comply with.
Knowledge
MySpace argued that no liability could accrue to it on two counts. The first was that it had no actual or direct knowledge or role in the selection of the content, while the second was that no control was exercised, or was exercisable over the uploading of the content. Additionally, there was no possible means by which it could have identified the offending content and segregated it from lawful content, or monitored all of the content that it serves as a platform for.
Intermediary status and Safe Harbour Protection
In relation to its status as an intermediary, MySpace raised several arguments. First, it argued that it had immunity under section 79 of the IT Act and under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (US DMCA). Another argument restated what is arguably the most basic tenet of intermediary liability that merely providing the platform by which infringement could occur cannot amount to infringement. In other words, the mere act of facilitating expression over internet does not amount to infringement. It then made reference to its terms of use and its institution of safeguards (in the form of a hash filter, a rights management tool and a system of take-down–stay-down), which it argued clearly reflect an intention to discourage or else address cases of infringement as they arise. MySpace also emphasized that a US DMCA compliant procedure was in place, although T-Series countered that the notice and take down system would not mitigate the infringement.
Relationship between MySpace and its Users
Taking from previous arguments about a lack of control and its status as an intermediary, MySpace argued that it was simply a licensee of users who uploaded content. The license is limited, in that MySpace is only allowed to alter user-generated content so as to make it viewable.

Outcomes

Infringement by Facilitation
The court concluded that infringement in terms of section 51 (a) (ii) had occurred in this case, since web space is a “place” in the terms required by the section and there were monetary gains in the form of ad revenue. The argument as to a lack of knowledge of infringement was also rejected on the ground that MySpace’s provision for safeguards against infringement clearly established a reason to believe that infringement will occur. Also referenced as evidence of knowledge, or at least a reason to believe infringement would occur, is the fact that MySpace modifies the format of the content before making it available on its website. It also tested for infringement by authorization in terms of section 14 read with section 51 (a) (i), but concluded that this did not arise here.
Reading away section 79?
The court accepted the argument made by T-Series to the effect that sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act must be read together. Since section 79 would be overridden by section 81’s non-obstante, the effect would be that rights holders’ interests under the Copyright Act will erode intermediaries’ immunity under section 79.
Due Diligence
The court rejected the argument that the provision of due diligence or curative measures post-infringement would be sufficient. Specifically, the contention that the quantum of content being uploaded precludes close scrutiny, given the amount of labour that would be involved, was rejected. Content should not immediately be made available but must be subject to enquiries as to its title or to authentication of its proprietor before it is made available. In fact, it holds that, “there is no reason to axiomatically make each and every work available to the public solely because user has supplied them unless the defendants are so sure that it is not infringement.” (Paragraph 88).

There is also an attempt to distinguish the Indian framework from the DMCA. While that law calls for post-infringement measures, it is argued that in India, on reading section 51 with section 55, the focus is on preventing infringement at the threshold. In response to the case that it would be impossible to do so, the court held that since the process here requires MySpace to modify the format of content uploaded to it to make it viewable, it will have a reasonable opportunity to test for infringement.

Analysis

Accounting for the Medium of Communication

The court’s analysis of the issues begins with a predictable emphasis on how the law of copyright would operate in the context of what is termed “internet computing”, peppered with trite statements about “the virtual world of internet” creating “complexit[ies]” for copyright law. The court appears to have entered into this discussion to establish that the notion of place in section 51 (a) (ii) should extend to “web space” but the statements made here only serve to contrast starkly against its subsequent failure to account for the peculiarities of form and function of intermediaries online. Had this line of argument been taken to its logical conclusion, after the character of the medium had been appreciated, the court’s final conclusion, that MySpace is liable for copyright infringement, would have been an impossible one to arrive at.

And What of Free Speech?

As it had argued before the court, intermediaries such as MySpace have no means by which to determine whether content is illegal (whether by reason of amounting to a violation of copyright, or otherwise) until content is uploaded. In other words, there is no existing mechanism by which this determination can be made at the threshold, before posting.

The court does not engage with the larger consequences for such a scheme of penalizing intermediaries. Censoring patent illegalities at the threshold, even if that were possible is one thing. The precedent that the court creates here is quite another. Given the general difficulty in conclusively establishing whether there is an infringement at all due to the complexities in applying the exceptions contained under section 52, it should not be for ordinary private or commercial interests such as intermediaries to sit in judgment over whether content is or is not published at all. In order to minimize its own liability, the likelihood of legitimate content being censored by the intermediary prior to posting is high.

The consequences for civil liberties, and free speech and expression online in particular, appear to have been completely ignored in favour of rights holders’ commercial interests.

Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection

Even if every instance in question did amount to an infringement of copyright and a mechanism did exist allowing for removal of content, the effect of this judgment is to create a strict liability regime for intermediaries.

In other words, the court’s ruling will have the effect that courts’ determination of intermediaries’ liability will become detached from whether or not any fault can be attributed to them. MySpace did make this argument, even going as far as to suggest that doing so would impose strict liability on intermediaries. This would lead to an unprecedented and entirely unjustifiable result. In spite the fact that a given intermediary did apply all available means to prevent the publication of potentially infringing content, it would remain potentially liable for any illegality in the content, even though the illegality could not have been detected or addressed.

What is perhaps even more worrying is that MySpace’s attempt at proactively and in good faith preventing copyright infringement through its terms of use and in addressing them through its post-infringement measures was explicitly cited as evidence of knowledge of and control over the uploading of copyrighted material, at the threshold rather than ex post. This creates perverse incentives for the intermediary to ignore infringement, to the detriment of rights holders, rather than act proactively to minimize its incidence.

A final observation is that the court’s use, while pronouncing on relief, of the fact that MySpace makes a “copy” of the uploaded content by converting it into a format that could subsequently be hosted on the site and made accessible to show evidence of infringement and impose liability upon MySpace in itself is a glaring instance of the disingenuous reasoning the court employs throughout the case. There is another problem with the amended section 79, which waives immunity where the intermediary “modifies” material. That term is vague and overreaches, as it does here: altering formats to make content compatible with a given platform is not comparable to choices as to the content of speech or expression, but the reading is tenable under section 79 as it stands.

The result of all of this is to dislodge the section 79 immunity that accrues to intermediaries and replace that with a presumption that they are liable, rather than not, for any illegality in the content that they passively host.

Since the judgment in the MySpace case, the Copyright Act has been amended to include some provisions that would bear on online service providers and on intermediaries’ liability for hosting infringing content, in particular. Section 52 (1) (b) of the amended Act provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public” would not infringe copyright. The other material provision is section 52 (1) (c) which provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy” will not constitute an infringement of copyright. The latter provision appears to institute a rather rudimentary, and very arguably incomplete, system of notice and takedown by way of a proviso. This requires intermediaries to takedown content on written complaint from copyright owners for a period of 21 days or until a competent rules on the matter whichever is sooner, and restore access to the content once that time period lapses, if there is no court order to sustain it beyond that period.

This post does not account for the effect that these provisions could have had on the case, but it is already clear, from the sloppy drafting of section 52 (1) (c) and its proviso that they are not entirely salutary even at the outset. At any rate, there appears to be nothing that *determinatively* affects intermediaries’ secondary liability, i.e., their liability for users’ infringing acts.

Disclosure: CIS is now a party to these proceedings at the Delhi High Court. This is a purely academic critique, and should not be seen to have any prejudice to the arguments we will make there.

[*]. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. and Another, on 29 July, 2011, Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law. See http://bit.ly/quj6JW, last accessed on October 31, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space

Summary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015

jyoti — 2015-11-30T10:47:13Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

I. The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy at the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015. The discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of intellectual property within and across borders were availability of local applications and content were addressed. The panel also discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies could make the most effective contribution. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of development and promotion of local content and applications. List of speakers included:

Lenni Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations
Helani Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia
Sergio Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson
Raúl L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics, Columbia Institute of Tele-information
Jimson Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)
Lydia Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO
H.E. Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology, Indonesia
Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of State
Deputy Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for the republic of South Africa
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
H.E. Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology Minister of Bangladesh
Jari Arkko, Chairman, IETF
Silvia Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association
Gary Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental Organizations, ITU

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /igf 2015-main -sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room

Video link Internet economy and Sustainable Development here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8

II. Public Knowledge organised a workshop on The Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data at Workshop Room 5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions including ways to address them. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The panel for the workshop included the following.

Vint Cerf, Google
Lawrence Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Richard Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol
Marietje Schaake, European Parliament
Nasser Kettani, Microsoft
Sunil Abraham, CIS India

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /workshops /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ

III. Article 19 and Privacy International organised a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015. The workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools. Pranesh Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The panel for this workshop included the following.

David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Juan Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia
Edison Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Ted Hardie, Google
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe
Professor Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute
Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /worksh o ps /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo

IV. Chalmers & Associates organised a session on A Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating and a full spectrum of diverse views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh Prakash provided a detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different approaches to zero-rating. The panellists for this session were the following.

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2

V. The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation at Workshop Room 4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Anne Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
Eileen Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
Byron Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
Christopher Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
Sunil Abraham Executive Director, CIS India
Alice Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Will Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google
Dunja Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE
Thomas Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German Federal Foreign Office
Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
Matt Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4

Video link Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0

VI. The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00 – 15:30 on 12 November, 2015. The coalition brought together panelists to highlight the challenges in developing an accountability framework for internet governance venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Robin Gross, IP Justice
Jeanette Hofmann, Director Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Farzaneh Badiei, Internet Governance Project
Erika Mann, Managing Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors ICANN
Paul Wilson, APNIC
Izumi Okutani, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Keith Drazek , Verisign
Jyoti Panday, CIS
Jorge Cancio, GAC representative

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w

VII. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at Workshop Room 3 from 11:00 – 12:00 on 10 November, 2015. The open forum discussed the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. It brought together panelists topresent ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers included

Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX, NL
Pranesh Prakash CIS, India
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)

Detailed description of the open forum is available here http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ

VIII. UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers include

1. Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo

2.Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

3. Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community

4. Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO

5. Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19

6. Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali

7. Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

8. Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS

9. Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra

10. Representative GNI

11. Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

12. Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link to the panel is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

IX. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize a workshop on the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The workshop elaborated on the Manila Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability for intermediaries for third party content. The workshop saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Kelly Kim Open Net Korea,
Jyoti Panday, CIS India,
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19,
Rebecca McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO
Giancarlo Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University
Will Hudson, Google

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs

ACCESSIBILITY

X. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs organised a workshop on Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility at Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The discussion focused on the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Sunil Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The panelists for this discussion were the following.

Francesca Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT
Cid Torquato, Government of Brazil
Carlos Lauria, Microsoft Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Derrick L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region
Fernando H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting
Gunela Astbrink, GSA InfoComm

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3

Video Link Empowering the next billion by improving accessibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs

OPENNESS

XI. A workshop on FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13 November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to openness of the internet and the ability of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred different perspectives about the future co-development of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards, open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated networks. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Satish Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India
Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa
Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York
Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation
Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant
Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil
Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil
Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015

Centre for Internet and Society

Technical Alternative to Encrypted Media Extensions

Introduction

Aims of the Specification

Metrics of Comparison

Technological Copy Protection

Copy Protection (Legal)

Security

Privacy

Accessibility

Interoperability

Specifications

EME Specification

Obfuscation (Arbitrary Codec)

HTTPS and JS encryption

Encryption using video tag

Plugin System (Flash)

Tech-savvy students given tips to enter IT field

Tech Talk: Landscape of Wireless Communications & Electromagnetic Spectrum

A. Radha Krishna

Presentation Material

Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia

Problem Statement

How does this course attempt to address this problem?

Background

Course Objectives

Key Concepts

Course Design

Duration

Resources

Registration

Tallapaka Pada Sahityam is now on Wikisource

Talk on bringing 1000 books about the culture of Maharashtra on Marathi Wikipedia

Talamaddale on August 23

Workshop

T’puram to host Wikipedia workshop on May 4, 5

SVG translation workshop Kannada

SVG Translation Workshop at KBC North Maharashtra University

Background

Objectives

Facilitators

Agenda

Report

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Report

Background

Needs Assessment

Chromebook Distribution

Supporting Indian Community 2018: Needs Assessment

Super Cassettes v. MySpace (Redux)

Brief Facts

1) Whether MySpace could be said to have knowledge of infringement so as to attract liability for secondary infringement under Section 51(a)(ii)?

2) Does proviso to Section 81 override the "safe harbor" granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000?

3) Whether it was possible to harmoniously read and interpret Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act?

On MySpace Complying with Safe Harbor Requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 (and Intermediary Rules, 2011)

Additional Issues Considered by the Court

Relief Granted

Super Cassettes v. MySpace

The Facts

The Defence

Outcomes

Analysis

Accounting for the Medium of Communication

And What of Free Speech?

Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection

Effect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012

Summary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015