Centre for Internet and Society

September 2010 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-08-10T07:22:30Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! In this bulletin we bring you updates of our research, news and media coverage and announcement of events organised in the month of September 2010.

News Updates

Conference: Internet at Liberty 2010: This conference is being held in Budapest from 20 to 22 September 2010. It is co-sponsored by Google and Central European University. Sunil Abraham and Anja Kovacs are attending the conference.
http://bit.ly/afo0WY

INDIA Fears of Privacy Loss Pursue Ambitious ID Project: Fears about loss of privacy are being voiced as India gears up to launch an ambitious scheme to biometrically identify and number each of its 1.2 billion inhabitants.
http://bit.ly/dnJDRu
Innovate / Activate: The event will be held on 24 and 25 September 2010 at New York Law School. http://bit.ly/cbICFq
Webinar: Closed for Business: A Global Panel Discusses International Copyright Laws and Their Impact on the Open Internet
http://bit.ly/a3ZFBw
The madness of software patents
India’s patent law excludes software per se, yet over a thousand patents have been granted, writes Lata Jishnu in an article published in Down to Earth.
http://bit.ly/cpHd7R
Why piracy is tough to rein in
“Video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the film industry”
http://bit.ly/aDUpiY
Transparency and MDGs: the Role of the Media and Technology
Key quotes from sixth panel
http://bit.ly/b3a0YC
Copyright bill restricts Net access
Law to curb piracy may fetter creativity
http://bit.ly/cFj3rD
科技改變社會數位原生代計畫
The Chinese language press covered the Digital Natives workshop in Taipei.
http://bit.ly/bPhEO4
科技改變社會數位原生代掀波
The Chinese press published an article on Digital Natives.
http://bit.ly/bHaQor
Information is Beautiful hacks in India with David Cameron
The Prime Minister took some of the UK's top hackers and data experts with him to India this week. David McCandless was with them.
http://bit.ly/dr3AJ2

Events

International Conference on Enabling Access to Education through ICT: ICT workshop in New Delhi from 27th to 29th October, 2010...Registrations open!
http://bit.ly/9flyEK
A Talk by Philipp Schmidt: Philip Schmidt of Peer 2 Peer University will be giving a lecture at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore on 6 October, 2010.
http://bit.ly/aVyzMq

Research

On Talking Back: A Report on the Taiwan Workshop: What does it mean to Talk Back? Who do we Talk Back against? Are we alone in our attempts or a part of a larger community? How do we use digital technologies to find other peers and stake-holders? What is the language and vocabulary we use to successfully articulate our problems? How do we negotiate with structures of power to fight for our rights? These were the kind of questions that the Talking Back workshop held in the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica in Taiwan from 16 to 18 August 2010 posed.
http://bit.ly/daE4dM
The Binary: City and Nature: A continuation of the last post wherein I am looking at various other representation of the city in both classical and popular medium, today I am writing my views on the analysis of certain Miniature paintings.
http://bit.ly/b5FP5D
Of the State and the Governments - The Abstract, the Concrete and the Responsive: This post examines the concepts of state and government to lay the ground for understanding responsiveness enforced through transparency discourses and the deployment of ICTs, the Internet and e-governance programmes. It also lays the context for understanding why and how ICTs. Internet and e-governance have been deployed in India for improving government-citizen interfaces, eliminating middlemen, delivering services electronically and for introducing a range of similar reforms to institute transparency and a responsive state.
http://bit.ly/cNLKcY
The Responsive State --- Introduction to the Series: This post is an introduction to a series of posts on the concept of the 'responsive state'. In this series, I try to explain the various meanings that the term responsiveness has come to acquire when it is used in relation with the discourses surrounding transparency and the deployment of ICTs and the Internet to enforce transparency and thereby create a responsive state. Understanding the notion of responsiveness requires us to revisit and analyze certain concepts and the relations that have been drawn between concepts such as state, government, politics, administration, transparency, effectiveness, government-citizen interface, ICTs and effectiveness, among others.
http://bit.ly/agBOiq
Attentional Capital in Online Gaming: The Currency of Survival
This blog post by Arun Menon discusses the concepts of production, labour and race in virtual worlds and their influence on the production of attention as a currency. An attempt is made to locate attentional capital, attentional repositories and attention currencies within gaming to examine 'attention currencies and its trade and transactions in virtual worlds. A minimal collection of attention currencies are placed as central and as a pre-requisite for survival in MMOs in much the same way that real currency become a necessity for survival. The approach is to locate attentional capital through different perspectives as well as examine a few concepts around virtual worlds.
http://bit.ly/aaGZj8
What's in a Name? Or Why Clicktivism May Not Be Ruining Left Activism in India, At Least for Now: In a recent piece in the Guardian titled “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism”, Micah White expressed severe concern that, in drawing on tactics of advertising and marketing research, digital activism is undermining “the passionate, ideological and total critique of consumer society”. His concerns are certainly shared by some in India: White's piece has been circulating on activist email lists where people noted with concern that e-activism may be replacing “the real thing” even in this country. But is the situation in India really this dire?
http://bit.ly/9a3I0G
Sexuality, Queerness and Internet technologies in Indian context: This blog post lays out the discursive construction of sexuality and queerness as intelligible domains in the Indian context while engaging with ideas of visibility, representation, exclusion, publicness, criminality, difference, tradition, experience, and community that have come into use with the critical responses to queer identities and practices in India.
http://bit.ly/byfPye

Accessibility

Enabling Access to Education through ICT - A Conference in Delhi: The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore in cooperation with the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICT (G3ICT), a flagship advocacy organization of the UN Global Alliance on ICT and Development (UN-GAID), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), UNESCO, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment and the Deafway Foundation is organizing an international conference, Enabling Access to Education through ICT in New Delhi from 27 to 29 October 2010. The event is sponsored by Hans Foundation. Registration for the conference has begun.
http://bit.ly/bmrkf7

Access to Knowledge

Pre-grant Opposition Filed for a Software Patent Application by Blackberry Manufacturers: A pre-grant opposition was filed against a software patent application filed in the patent office by Certicom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturers of Blackberry. The opposition was filed on August 31, 2010 by the Software Freedom Law Centre which has recently expanded its operations to India. This exciting development was announced by Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the lines of the seminar on “Software Patents and the Commons” organised on 1 September 2010 in Delhi jointly by SFLC, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Society for Knowledge Commons and Red Hat. Filing more such oppositions to software patents in India was in the pipeline and this is just the beginning of a movement to take on monopolisation of knowledge and ideas through patenting software, the organisers said.
http://bit.ly/9wE1Xs
First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected: In the first decision post-Bilski, the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The ruling in this case has buttressed the fact that the Bilski decision furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software even though the Supreme Court of the United States totally avoided mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision.
http://bit.ly/cnPw7E
The Bilski Case - Impact on Software Patents: The Supreme Court of the United States gave its decision in Bilski v Kappos on 28 June, 2010. In this case the petitioners’ patent application sought protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The Court in affirming the rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also held that the machine- or-transformation test is not necessarily the sole test of patentability. The Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may sometimes limit competition and stifle innovation have provided a ray of hope. In the light of the developments, the Bilski decision as far as patentability of software is concerned may not be totally insignificant, says Krithika Dutta Narayana.
http://bit.ly/bjrPGh

Openness

Free Access to Law—Is it here to Stay? An Environmental Scan Report: The following is a preliminary project report collaboratively collated by the researchers of the "Free Access to Law" research study. This report aims to highlight the trends, as well as the risks and opportunities, for the sustainability of Free Access to Law initiatives in each of the country examined.
http://bit.ly/9VVzkk
Open Access to Science and Scholarship - Why and What Should We Do?: The National Institute of Advanced Studies held the eighth NIAS-DST training programme on “Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Science, Technology and Society” from 26 July to 7 August, 2010. The theme of the project was ‘Knowledge Management’. Dr. MG Narasimhan and Dr. Sharada Srinivasan were the coordinators for the event. Professor Subbiah Arunachalam made a presentation on Open Access to Science and Scholarship.
http://bit.ly/ciohYy

Internet Governance

Moldova Online: An Interview with Victor Diaconu: In this interview for Russian Cyberspace, set up with the help of Sunil Abraham (Executive Director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India), computer software professional Victor Diaconu explains the nature of Internet use, state control and the development of blogging and social media platforms in Moldova. Victor works at Computaris in Chisinau. He is Moldova educated, and has travelled to several western countries (including lengthy stays to US, UK) to learn about and understand what there is to be done in Moldova. Sudha Rajagopalan interviewed Victor Diaconu.
http://bit.ly/cgIvXT
Presentation of the UID project by Ashok Dalwai – A Report: On Tuesday, 7 September 2010, Ashok Dalwai, the Deputy Director General of the Unique Identification of India (UIDAI), gave a lecture at the Indian Institute for Science in Bangalore. Representing the UID Authority, his presentation explained the vision of the project and focused on the challenges involved in demographic and biometric identification, the technology adopted, and the enrolment process. Elonnai Hickok gives a report of his presentation in this blog post.
http://bit.ly/aAy5DG
Beyond Access as Inclusion: On 13 September, the day before the fifth Internet Governance Forum opens, CIS is co-organised in Vilnius a meeting on Internet governance and human rights. One of the main aims of this meeting was to call attention to the crucial, yet in Internet governance often neglected, indivisibility of rights. In this blog post, Anja Kovacs uses this lens to illustrate how it can broaden as well reinvigorate our understanding of what remains one of the most pressing issues in Internet governance in developing countries to this day: that of access to the Internet.
http://bit.ly/cgS9py
Summary of UID Public Meeting, August 25 2010: A summary of the "No UID" public meeting that took place on Aug. 25th at the Constitution Club, New Dehli.
http://bit.ly/9epHTz
No UID Campaign in New Delhi - A Report: The Unique Identification (UID) Bill is not pro-citizen. The scheme is deeply undemocratic, expensive and fraught with unforseen consequences. A public meeting on UID was held at the Constitution Club, Rafi Marg in New Delhi on 25 August, 2010. The said Bill came under scrutiny at the meeting which was organised by civil society groups from Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi campaigning under the banner of "No UID". The speakers brought to light many concerns, unanswered questions and problems of the UID scheme.
http://bit.ly/97HwbS
Wherever you are, whatever you do: Facebook recently launched a location-based service called Places. Privacy advocates are resenting to this new development. Sunil Abraham identifies the three prime reasons for this outcry against Facebook. The article was published in the Indian Express on 23 August, 2010.
http://bit.ly/adXVjB

Telecom

What a highway can do: Despite signs of transformational change, we need more - SOPs and quality http://bit.ly/deUbmU

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/september-2010-bulletin

Sensitization Seminar on IPR for Electronics & ICT Sectors

praskrishna — 2016-05-01T16:37:27Z

Role of IP as a Strategic and Financial tool in the Global Market. Rohini Lakshané attended the event held in Vishakhapatnam on April 21, 2016.

Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Centre (APTDC) of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), in association with Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), organized one day ‘Sensitization Seminar on IPR for Electronics and ICT Sectors’ with the theme ‘Role of IP as a Strategic and Financial tool in the Global Market’ on 21 Apr 2016 at Visakhapatnam.

The Seminar provided a great platform for Entrepreneurs, Managers/Executives and Professionals in various functional areas such as Research and Development, Design, marketing, brand management, Directors of organizations, Legal and IP departments who seek to integrate IP strategy into the Business Management, to learn the basics of IPR and various laws in the major jurisdictions worldwide in Electronics & ICT Sectors, to discuss on the challenges & emerging trends for obtaining the protection, and how one can use IP rights as strategic and business tool towards the economic growth of the organization.

The sessions of the Seminar are as follows:

Introduction to IPRs and its significance to the Electronics & ICT Sectors.
Current issues and Emerging trends in protecting Electronics & ICT Sectors in India and Abroad.
Best Practices on IP Management & Enforcement to curb Infringement and Piracy.
Case Studies on using IP as a Business tool for Electronics & ICT Sectors.
Exploring current Innovation opportunities in Visakhapatnam and transforming them into IP.

See the brochure

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/sensitization-seminar-on-ipr-for-electronics-ict-sectors

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-10-23T14:22:15Z

A pre-grant opposition has been filed against a software patent application filed in the patent office by Certicom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturers of Blackberry. The opposition was filed on August 31, 2010 by the Software Freedom Law Centre which has recently expanded its operations to India. This exciting development was announced by Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the lines of the seminar on “Software Patents and the Commons” organised on 1 September 2010 in Delhi jointly by SFLC, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Society for Knowledge Commons and Red Hat. Filing more such oppositions to software patents in India was in the pipeline and this is just the beginning of a movement to take on monopolisation of knowledge and ideas through patenting software, the organisers said.

Software patent opposition is still in its nascent stage in India while several oppositions have been filed against software patents in the US and the EU. The harmful effects of software patents are little known to the Indian public, especially from the context of its danger to development in small and medium size enterprises, as pointed out by Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society who spoke about why software patents are bad for innovation and development in society and also in the software industry, in particular.

In the same context, Venkatesh Hariharan from Red Hat as also Mr. T.C. James, Director of the National Intellectual Property Organisation spoke about the growing importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies and as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. “Out of 500 super computers in the world, 446 are running on Linux”, he said, talking about how open source software makes computing highly accessible and affordable while allowing for improvements to be made to the software by any user and releasing it back to benefit the whole community. Dr. Anshu Bhardwaj involved in the Open Source Drug Discovery project undertaken by CSIR, spoke at length about the project as a live demonstration of the power of open source software in impacting drug access and development and health care reform across communities at highly economical rates.

Prof. Eben Moglen, Executive Director of Software Freedom Law Centre in New York who was the keynote speaker at the conference spoke about the growth of the free software and open source movement based on the principle of equating knowledge with commons – that is, a good to be commonly shared by all members of the public – resulting in access to and sharing of knowledge and distribution of information in society for greater innovation, creation of new ideas, communication and development. Dr. Abhijit Sen, member of the Planning Commission was the other keynote speaker who stressed on the role of the government and the policy making bodies to ensure that knowledge and education is accessible and shared without restrictions in such a way that it is not misused by the members of the society.

Other notable speakers in the event included Prabir Purkayastha from the Society for Knowledge Commons, Pradyut Bora, Chief Convenor of BJP's information and technology cell, Jaijit Bhattacharjee from Hewlett Packard and Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Professor, National University of Juridical Sciences. The event also witnessed the participants discuss the various strategies to be used from the perspective of legal analysis as well as policy reform, for opposing software patents filed or granted in India. Indian patent law clearly declares computer programmes per se or software patents to be unpatentable. Prabir Purkayastha pointed out that the most important and major scientific discoveries in history have not been patented and that this has, in no way prevented new ideas from being created and has in fact fostered such innovation. In spite of such a clear legal restriction on grant of software patents, around 1000 software patents have been filed in the patent offices in India in the last year. This trend is extremely disturbing since it poses a serious threat to access to knowledge and distribution of information in society in addition to stifling innovation and development in the software industry.

The seminar was attended by people from diverse backgrounds including the IT industry, civil society organisations, and groups working in pharma patent advocacy, media persons and government officials.

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/softtware-patents-and-the-commons

Seminar on Rethinking Copyright and Licensing for Digital Publishing Today (Delhi, January 23)

sinha — 2017-01-21T14:51:56Z

Against the backdrop of a growing global and domestic digital publishing industry on one hand and the recent judgment by the Delhi High Court that upheld the education exception to reproduction of academic and literary works, Pro Helvetia - Swiss Arts Council, Goethe-Institut Max Mueller Bhavan New Delhi, and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) are organising a seminar to discuss and reflect on the relevance and functions of copyright and licensing within the transforming market practices and legal structures of the publishing industry today.

Poster: Download (PNG)

The two speakers at the seminar will be Dr. Philipp Theisohn, Professor of Modern German Literary Studies, Zurich University, and Ms. Kerstin Schuster, Droemer Knaur publishing group. The session will be chaired by Mr. Zakir Thomas, Additional Director General (Risk Assessment), Directorate of Income Tax, Government of India.

Dr. Theisohn will address the question of whether the digital age requires a new approach to copyright thinking, and Ms. Schuster will discuss the dynamics of the international market for licenses in the contemporary publishing world.

Please join us at the CIS Delhi office on Monday, January 23, at 11:00 for the seminar. The seminar will include the presentations by the speakers followed by an open moderated discussion.

Further, it is our great pleasure to inform you that in a recent judgement on the Super Cassettes v. MySpace case, the Delhi High has strengthened the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by internet intermediaries in India. As CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment, we would like to invite you for an informal discussion about the case over lunch. This will take place after the seminar.

A brief analysis of the judgement can be found here.

Please RSVP by sending an email to Nisha Kumar at nisha@cis-india.org.

Address: The Centre for Internet and Society, first floor, B 1/8, Hauz Khas, near G block market, after Crunch, New Delhi, 110016.

Location on Google Map: http://j.mp/cis-delhi.

Philipp Theisohn

Philipp Theisohn, who was born in 1974, studied Modern German Literature, Medieval Studies and Philosophy in Tübingen and Zürich. He gained his doctorate in Jerusalem and Tübingen and, since 2013, has been Professor of Modern German Literary Studies at Zurich University. He has produced numerous publications on German and European literary history from the 13th to the 21st century, in particular on “literary future knowledge“, the perception of literary property, and Jewish Cultural Poetics.

The focal points of his work and research are the literature of Switzerland, literary property/plagiarism as a literary historical phenomenon, science fiction and futurology, realism, Franz Kafka and Early Modern Poetics of Knowledge.

Theisohn is intensely involved in the transmission of literature far beyond the academic environment. He is a member of the jury for the “Swiss Book Prize“ of the Publishers‘ Association, an expert for inter-disciplinary and literary projects for the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia; he curates literary exhibitions, is active in a broad range of journalistic work, among other things for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and is in charge of the blog and website of the “Schweizer Buchjahr” which contributes significantly to contemporary literary discourse.

Among his most important book publications are: "Die Zukunft der Dichtung. Geschichte des literarischen Orakels 1450-2050" (“The Future of Poetry. The History of the Literary Oracle 1450-2050”); “Plagiat. Eine unoriginelle Literaturgeschichte”( “Plagiarism. An Unoriginal Literary History”) and “Literarisches Eigentum. Zur Ethik geistiger Arbeit im digitalen Zeitalter” (“Literary Property. On the Ethics of Intellectual Work in the Digital Age”).

Kerstin Schuster

Having obtained a university degree in Romance Studies and Political Science, Kerstin Schuster worked in the bookselling trade. Since 1993 she is trading licenses for the international market. She has worked till 2001 for the literary agency Dr. Ray-Güde Martin, from 2001 until 2013 for the publishing house S. Fischer Verlag in Frankfurt, and since 2014 for the Droemer Knaur publishing group.

For many years now, Kerstin Schuster is also facilitating seminars on how to successfully offer and sell licenses in the international market.

Zakir Thomas

Mr. Thomas is an expert in the field of intellectual property. He has served as a former Registrar of Copyright for the Government of India, and as a project director of the Open Source Drug Discovery Initiative under the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (a premier R&D org). His expertise spans across copyright, open source innovation, neglected diseases and innovation ecosystem in science and technology in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017

Seminar on Odia Language in New Delhi by the Intellects

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T15:04:41Z

Recently the Odia Language has been accorded classical status by the Government of India. It has increased the responsibility of all Odias to protect, promote and propagate the Odia literature at this digital age while the next gen Odias are moving away from their mother tongue.

The event report was published in Odisha Samachar on April 24, 2014. Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

It is now important for all the scholars, writers, intellectuals and students of Odia literature to shoulder the responsibility to carry forward the legacy of the language while confronting the challenges. On this issue a brain storming seminar has organized by a New Delhi based progressive forum of intellectual Odia people; THE INTELLECTS at Tyagaraj Nagar Jaggnath Mandir, New Delhi. Odia Intellectuals stresses on need for revival of Bhagabat Tungi in Odisha villages as knowledge hub. It should be noted that The Intellects a Delhi based organization of Odia intellectuals and Shree Jagannath Mandir & Odisha Art And Cultural Center have come together to organize aseminar on the subject “Relevance Of Bhagabat Tungi In The Evolution Of Odia LanguageFrom Budha Era To Digital Age” on the occasion of one year celebration its mission ASA SIKHIBA AMARI BHASHA which is an initiative to teach Odia language in New Delhi.

The conference was about the discussion over creative platform for future development of Odia language and literature. Delegates were drawn from diverse areas to provide more interdisciplinary insight in to issues and challenges that are in from of Odia language to march ahead in the new age of computer.

The seminar was attended by Rajya Sabha MP Baisnab Parida, Dr. Subash Pani, Dr. Bhagaban Prakash, researcher Subrat Prusty, writer and lawyer Biraja Mohapatra, journalist and Odiakart.com founder Sahasranshu Mahapatra, Subhashish Panigrahi- Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, Kamdev Biswal of Tyagraj Nagar Jaggnath Temple and The Intellects chairman Shri Debendra Nath Rout. Sh. Subrat Prusty was felicitated with The Intellects Award-2014 for his contribution to Odia language. Sh. Ramachandra Nath has felicitated for his pallibani mission in New Delhi. Students of ASA SIKHIBA AMARI BHASHA were felicitated for their performance in learning process of Odia in national capital. The program was attended by who is who of Delhi Odias like Dr. Anita Panda, Prof. Saudamini Barik, Jayaram Samal, Indubhushan Lenka, OdiaRadio Founder, Sitanshu Mohapatra, Journalist Asit Ranjan Mishra, OdishaDiary (www.orissadiary.com) founder Prachee Naik, Rashmi Ranjan Parida,The Intellects members Sangram Dhar, Smrutidhara Rout, Anasuya Sahoo, Aditya Mohanty, Nirmal Dhal, Sanjaya Parida,Pankajamala Sarangi, Premanda Swain, lawyer Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty, Tarun Samantray, and others.

This program was attended by nearly 600 Odias living across the national capital region. The Intellects also organsing 7-days BHAGABAT SANDHYA will also be organized at the premises of Shree Jagannath Mandir, Tyagraj Nagar, New Delhi from 21st April to 27 April 2014 in an effort to spread the noble principles of the SHREEMAD BHAGABAT .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/eodishasamacharseminar-on-odia-language-in-new-delhi-by-the-intellects

Selection of Programme Officer — Pilot Projects, CIS-A2K

nitika — 2013-10-30T06:07:24Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) opened applications for the post of Programme Officer, Pilot Projects for its Access to Knowledge (A2K) Programme on 17th April 2013. The vacancy and call for applications was shared on all Indian language mailing lists, city mailing lists as well as Village Pumps.

Last date of submitting applications was 30th April which was later extended for another week. By the first week of May we had received 35 applications.

First level of shortlisting
Applicants were given an assignment where they had to write at least one new article on their respective language Wikipedia projects (though we encouraged them to write more than one article if they liked). Asking them to write new articles on Wikipedia was a way to assess their seriousness and level of commitment towards this job. Applicants who failed to submit their written assignment were outright rejected in this level. Amongst the ones that did complete the assignment were assessed on the basis of their relevant work experience and skills that matched requirements of the job profile. CIS-A2K assessed these applicants on different parameters such as:

Exposure to digital domain
Exposure in community driven projects
Exposure of working with schools of performing arts or cultural departments
Prior experience of working in multi-cultural environment
Prior experience in program design and management
Exposure to Wikimedia projects and community
Technical work experience

In this level, 9 applicants were rejected due to failure of completing the assignment and 1 applicant pulled out. Out of the remaining 25 applicants, CIS-A2K shortlisted 15.

Second level of shortlisting
Vishnu and Nitika conducted one hour Skype interviews with each of the shortlisted candidates. CIS-A2K tried to assess candidates on their:

Understanding and passion for Wikimedia movement and projects

Level of understanding of the job profile

Level of understanding of open source, open access, open standards.

Clarity of thinking and communication skills

Ability to work with teams and communities

Experience / understanding of community mobilisation & outreach

Skills in project management

Comfort with working in unstructured environments

Ability to learn new things and approach unfamiliar situations

Personal passions and interests

On the basis of Skype conversations, CIS-A2K shortlisted 6 candidates out of 15 for the next level.

Third level of shortlisting
At this stage one more applicant pulled out and remaining 5 were called for personal interviews to our Bangalore office. All participants were requested to come prepared to present on the topic of 'Performing Arts and Wikipedia' for 10 mins. Each interview lasted for approximately an hour. Towards the closure of the day all participants were requested to gather where each one of them showcased their presentations. This further led to an interesting group discussion.

CIS-A2K had requested Wikimedia India to select someone from the Chapter who could be involved in the selection process and we're glad that Sowmyan Tirumurti, Executive Manager of Wikimedia Chapter could join us for a little while on the day of personal interviews.

Final Selection
Based on all the parameters and levels of interviews, CIS-A2K decided to extend the offer to Syed Muzammiluddin for the position of Programme Officer - Pilot Projects. Muzammil's experience, skills and interest matched our requirements the best and we look forward to a long and successful relationship with him.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/selection-of-programme-officer-pilot-projects-a2k

Sectoral Innovation Councils on Intellectual Property Rights – RTI Requests + DIPP Responses

Nehaa Chaudhari and Saahil Dama — 2016-05-21T04:34:04Z

CIS filed an RTI application on August 11, 2015, seeking information regarding the functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council (SInC) on Intellectual Property Rights. This post documents the responses received.

Nisha Kumar assisted in the compilation of this document.

The RTI application can be accessed here.

The following details were received from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP):

Creation of SInCs

A meeting, under the chairmanship of Sam Pitroda, was held on January 15, 2011, to discuss the setting of SInCs for various ministries. The SInCs would be autonomous and decentralised bodies focused on preparing a Roadmap for a Decade of Innovations in their respective sectors.

SInCs on IPR

The SInC on IPR had 12 members from various stakeholder groups including academicians, research organizations, industries and the government. There were no members on behalf of civil society organizations of non-governmental organizations. The manner and the basis on which these members were selected has not been disclosed.

SInC Meeting 1: September 7, 2011

The list of attendees is available in the file ‘Office Memorandum and list of Members of SInC on IPR’

Attendance
A meeting for the SInC on IPR was held on September 7, 2011 under the chairmanship of the DIPP. This meeting was attended by only 9 members out of 12. Amongst those absent were Dr. Ranbir Singh (National Law University, Delhi), Prof. Govardhan Mehta (IISc, Bangalore) and Mr. Soshil Kumar Jain (Panacea Biotec). Additionally, organizations such as IIT, Delhi and BHEL and Tata Motors were represented by members different from the ones on the original list of members.

Agenda
The agenda and minutes of the meeting are available here

The meeting had three items on the agenda – developing a framework for the National IPR policy, discussion on utility models and co-opting knowledge partners or research institutions for preparation of draft report.

i. Developing a framework for the National IPR strategy

Members were called to give their views and suggestions on the National IPR strategy. Firstly, it was unanimously submitted that measures to increase innovation in the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) sector had to be adopted. Different means for the same were suggested, such as improving access to databases on patents and non-patents literature, development of product catalogues by SME clusters and making low-cost technology available to SMEs through government acquisition.

Secondly, development of expertise to file pre-grant opposition for preventing grant of frivolous patents was emphasized upon. The members also agreed on identifying ‘white spaces’ that were lacking in innovation.

Finally, the members stressed on introducing a course on IPR in the curriculum of technical and post graduate/research programmes in science. Action point – all members were required to prepare a position paper on the framework of the national IPR strategy within 1 month of the issue of the minutes by the DIPP. It was suggested that the framework should include the philosophy for a National IPR strategy, objectives to encourage IP, measures for modernizing IP offices and interventions for promoting commercialization of IP. The draft framework can be accessed here

ii. Discussion on utility models

The utility model framework can be accessed here

It was agreed that the utility models should be protected through a separate legal framework. The maximum period of protection would be 8 years and the number of claims would be limited to 5. However, members agreed that this should not lead to evergreening of patents. Utility models will be covered in detail in a subsequent post.

iii. Co-opting knowledge partner/research institutions for preparation of draft report

Preparation of a National IPR strategy would require a detailed study of the present IPR scenario and its different aspects.

Action point – National Law School, Bangalore, was co-opted as the knowledge partner for preparing the draft report.

SInC Meeting 2: February 10, 2012

The agenda, office memorandum, list of participants and minutes of the meeting are available here.

Two different lists of attendees submitted in response to the RTI application (found here and here). As per both the lists, all the members were not present at the meeting and several organizations were represented by members different from the ones on the original Council.

The items on the agenda were –

Action taken after meeting 1;
Inputs for draft National IPR strategy; and,
Discussion paper on Utility Models

i. Action taken after meeting 1
The DIPP decided to take care of the administrative infrastructure of the IPR management in the country. The members were asked to give suggestions on the aspects of acquisition, protection and commercialization of IPRs.

It had been decided at the previous meeting that the position papers on the National IPR strategy were to be submitted within 1 month of the release of the minutes. However, only 4 members had given inputs. The remaining members were requested to expedite the same.

Also, National Law School, Bangalore, was unable to contribute to the preparation of the draft National IPR strategy. Hence IIT Delhi was co-opted as the alternate knowledge partner for the same.

ii. Inputs for the draft National IPR strategy

Several submissions were made by the members. Briefly, some of these were –

Diagnosis of reasons for not opting of registration of IPRs by SMEs;
Policy guidelines for the MOUs to be signed between the government and research institutions in case of government funding;
Need for DIPP to come up with policy on IPR ownership and management in case of government funding.

The members also supported the inclusion of a policy in the National IPR strategy to promote commercialization of innovations by individuals, SMEs and public sector units (PSUs).

iii. Discussion paper on Utility Models

Members were of the opinion that a utility model framework should be introduced to encourage individuals and SMEs to innovate. They were requested to expedite their inputs on the draft legal framework for utility models that had been circulated to them (available here)

The date of the next meeting was decided as March 22, 2012.

SInC Meeting 3: August 21, 2012

The office memorandum, list of participants and minutes of the meeting can be accessed here. Instead of the date decided at the previous meeting, the next meeting was held on August 21, 2012, 5 months after the scheduled date. Mr. N. K. Sabharwal was added to the list of members of the SInC on IPR. The grounds and procedure of the addition have not been made available. The new list of members is available here. The list of attendees for meeting 3 was not provided.

The agenda of the meeting was to discuss the draft National IPR strategy prepared by the DIPP on the basis of the comments received from the members of the Council. It is unclear if the remaining members also submitted their comments, as was requested in the previous meeting.

Some of the issues discussed were –
i. Adapting the draft National IPR strategy prepared by DIPP to the local conditions and developmental needs of the country – suggestions such as instituting an IP depository for technologies used in development of products and maintaining a dossier of judicial decisions on IPRs were made.

ii. Reviewing provisions for transfer of IPRs, including a restriction on transfer from an individual to a company.

iii. Making traditional knowledge (TK) of the country accessibly to universities and research institutions – it was suggested that a register should be maintained products developed on the basis of TK. Also, patents granted by the Indian Patent Office should be informed to universities and institutions for capacity building.

iv. Creating a fast tracking system for registration of green technology patents – the suggestion for a fast tracking system for green technology was supported and a similar system was prescribed for food technology.

v. Establishing an incubation fund to assist in research and development and acquisition of IPRs – SMEs would be given access to a patent pool and would be reimbursed up to Rs. 20 lakh for costs incurred in technology acquisition.

It was noted that the suggestions all pertained to the execution of the strategy. Members were requested to furnish suggestions regarding the strategy to the government. The draft strategy would be modified on the basis of the comments received from the members of the Council. It was also decided that the draft paper would be hosted on the website of the DIPP by the third week of September, 2012, for seeking inputs from stakeholders.

The Secretary (IPP) also suggested that the SInC on IPRs be reconstituted to include representatives from the industry and academia. The need for this is unclear since the industry (BHEL, Panacea, Bilcare) and academia (IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay, IISc Bangalore, NLU Delhi) were already represented in the Council.

SInC Meeting 4: April 30, 2013

The list of attendees and the minutes of the meeting can be found here. The Council had not been reconstituted despite the recommendation of the Secretary in the previous meeting.

Merely 6 members out of the total 12 were present for the meeting. Of these, certain organizations, such as BHEL, were also represented by people who had been not been present at any of the past meetings. It was agreed that members would not send representatives for future meetings since they had been nominated by their names. This had been a recurring problem in all the meetings so far. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss the draft IPR strategy and steps that needed to be taken further.

The draft had been prepared on the basis of the comments received from the members and the specific inputs of Mr. Sabharwal. Whether comments had been received from all the members, as had been decided in meeting 1, is unclear. Furthermore, there was no mention of the comments received from stakeholders after the draft paper had been published online in September 2012.

The following decisions were reached by the SInC –
i. The strategy document needed to be improved and made comprehensive to include IP issues relating to information technology, copyright, TK, plant variety protection, etc.
ii. The members were required to suggest 10 monetary and non-monetary incentives for harnessing creativity. The figure seems arbitrarily decided and there is no explanation for how this would affect the draft strategy itself.
iii. BHEL was to prepare a paper on schemes being implemented in the country for promoting innovation.
iv. The draft paper would be circulated after finalization. Thereafter, a two-year plan would be formulated to operationalize the IPR strategy.

Government Meeting 1: June 18, 2013

An office memorandum was sent stating that a meeting to discuss the improvement required in the draft National IPR strategy was scheduled to be held on June 18, 2013. Since no details about the meeting were sent, whether the meeting actually took place and what was discussed in unknown. The office memorandum is available here. The entire National IPR strategy can be read here.

Government Meeting 2: July 29, 2013

List of attendees and minutes of meeting here.

The meeting was held to make the National IPR strategy more comprehensive so that it could have a larger coverage. The meeting was attended by representatives of various government departments and ministries, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the SInC on IPR, which was represented by N. K. Sabharwal. A plethora of disconnected issues were flagged out. It was mentioned that concerns related to TK such as transboundary issues, sui-generis system for protection of TK and biopiracy should be incorporated into the strategy. It was also proposed that an Act for public funding of R&D should be introduced to foster innovation. Inclusion of a brief module on IPR in high school curriculums was recommended. The participants were requested to furnish comments in a written form to DIPP within a week of the meeting.

SInC Meeting 5: October 9, 2013

Agenda and minutes are available here. Though originally scheduled for August 27, 2013, the meeting was shifted to October 9 due to administrative reasons. The office memorandum for the same is available here. Despite agreeing in meeting 4 that the future meetings would be attended by the members personally, only 6 members were present. Organizations such as National Innovation Council, IIT Delhi and BHEL were represented by people other than the members of the SInC.

There were four items on the agenda –
i. Finalization of the draft National IPR strategy – paragraphs pertaining to setting up a National IP Enforcement Task Force and creating a formal legal regime for protection of trade secrets were removed. The statement mandating organizations to align their innovation strategies to national requirements was also removed.
ii. Work-plan for 2013-15 under the IPR strategy – no discussion on this in the minutes.
iii. Suggestions on monetary and non-monetary incentives for innovation – paper on incentive mechanisms to be prepared by BHEL is available here.
iv. Issues of time period for renewal of strategy and establishing a committee to review the implementation of the strategy – no discussion on this in the minutes.

Additionally, the members were asked to provide textual contributions to the document within 10 days of the meeting to enable its finalization.

Response to Queries Raised in the RTI Application (available here)

Q1. How many meetings has the SInC held since establishment?
DIPP: 5

Q2. Please supply minutes and all related documents of all its meetings.
Provided by the DIPP and have been attached through the post above.

Q3. How much are the members of the SInC paid? Are members paid on the basis of time or number of meetings held?
DIPP: One member, Dr. Karuna Jain, was reimbursed R. 18,374/- for attending the SInC meeting on August 21, 2012. The response, quite clearly, does not answer the question asked.

Q4. Has the SInC done any work or produced any outputs other than the 2012 draft of the National IPR strategy?
DIPP: Yes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sectoral-innovation-councils-intellectual-property-rights-2013-rti-requests-dipp-responses

Second Meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO

praskrishna — 2015-11-29T08:27:54Z

The second meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO was held in the Committee Room (6th floor) of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi on November 2, 2015. The meeting was held under the chairmanship of Special Secretary (I&B). Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha attended the meeting.

Download the minutes of the first meeting here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-meeting-of-the-expert-committee-on-wipo

Second Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition

praskrishna — 2017-08-08T00:33:51Z

Rohini Lakshane attended the round-table organized by CIIPC, National Law University, Delhi, in Bangalore on July 2, 2017.

The CIIPC conducts the Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition to offer a forum for members of the academia, policy makers, industry stakeholders and academically minded practitioners to engage on emerging issues at the interface of innovation, intellectual property & competition law and policy. The First Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition, held last year in New Delhi, was well attended. This time around, we look forward to continuing this dialogue through open and nuanced discussions on the most relevant and contentious issues concerning this area of law and economic policy, with special emphasis on recent developments in India.

Click to see the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-annual-roundtable-on-innovation-intellectual-property-and-competition

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:44:18Z

Also presented during the afternoon plenary, here are 3 statements by public interest organizations, the TACD, EFF and CIS:

The article was published in Knowledge Ecology International on December 9, 2014.

TACD: Thank you very much the transAtlantic consumer dialogue is concerned that the discussion on this treaty whereas in the past due to the lack of definitions we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it's becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and precisely because it's becoming identified some of these definitions we consider are concerning us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. And we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
And we think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could take into account a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.

We could avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. We could -- broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated carrier over the air with sounds and images, and what we really need, what we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don't see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the new business models need that flexibility, what we don't need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that will be burdensome for the future of the Internet.

So for that reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like really to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.

The call for a narrow based possible treaty was echoed by EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-b...

>> Electronic frontier foundation: This year marks the tenth anniversary of EFF discussions over the WIPO treaty for broadcasting organisations. And during that time our position has been constant that any such treating should be limited to addressing the unauthorized simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission of traditional broadcast untiles to the public without assigning new exclusive rights in the content of those signals. We also note it would be possible to include a right to prohibit the transmission of prebroadcast signals within a snail based approach and without assigning any new exclusive rights. Although this has been [decided?] in the past when WIPO dwed at the 2007 assembly to follow a signal based approach. Current discussions on post fixation rights have backtracked from this commitment and it's that more than anything else that has led these negotiations to become more protracted.
Creating new exclusive rights in post broadcast fixations would impede access to public domain material and material over which copyright limitations and exceptions may apply. This is because some material may not be readily available other than from broadcasts such as in the case of broadcast of sport or use events. It would impede the use of technological innovations that add val you to broadcast. Especially if it curtailed the use of circumvention devices this could affects digital media players and new innovations we can't even envision yet especially those running on free and open source marredware and software. So EFF urges WIPO members to be disciplined in their add harns to a narrow signal based approach as we see this as the only way that a treaty for broadcasting ors organisations can be conclude in 2015 or at all. Thank you.

The CIS made a technical analysis of the "charts" that cannot (yet) be provided to the public also here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed...

> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This intervention will be based on your chart detailing the concepts corresponding to the various definitions we are discussing here today. We believe that there are certain elements to these concepts that are inconsistent with the broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach and over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly discuss these.
First, Mr. Chair, in the first column, and broadcasting or cable casting organisation in the traditional sense where communication of the signal has been listed under the scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, as we have submitted in other statements before this community, before this committee, communication itself we believe is a concept that is an element of copyright, and it's distinction broadcast rights char related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, we, therefore, believe could be broadcast or transmitted and accordingly under the element that deals with the scope of responsibility, we are of the money opinion that it should read broadcast or transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal, and the focus should not be communication to the public.

A concept that's also been discussed in certain alternatives to the definitions under Article 5 which accordingly we would loss not favor. Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column in broadcasting and cable casting transmission, we have three observations. Fist, under the means of transmission, we believe the transmission over computer networks is wide enough to encompass IP based tran missions and, therefore, should be excluded in order for the treaty to be consistent with the signals based approach.

Second, on the reception of the broadcast or cable cast prance mission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase general public. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public, say, family members, could be covered under the term public but would be excluded from the term general puck public which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not, which also flows into the thought column on the signal, and whether the signal itself is encrypted or not, encrypted or not.

And which would also then relate to whether broadcasting organisations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decription. Mr. Chair, we don't think there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decription. Given that signal theft is a crime, having a spect decription might result in an absurdity where it would cover decrypting and unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter where the transmission by the retransmitter was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in the third column and on the meaning of the signal, we submit that our preferred definition would be one where the definition of a signal is confined, and is understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast and not one which has the capability of such transmission as has been stated in your third chart.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-public-interest-organizations-statements-regarding-the-broadcasting-treaty

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

Sau Dhuni Teen Project: December Edit-a-thon

garule — 2015-12-08T10:30:09Z

As part of the "Sau Dhuni Teen Project" a multilingual Wikipedia Wikipedia edit-a-thon was organised at the Women's Studies Centre, University of Pune.

Concept note:
The digital domain is becoming increasingly significant as a knowledge repository today. Especially relevant in this context is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which contains information on almost every topic under the sun and is used extensively by researchers. The fact that information from the Wikipedia is even used as a starting point of academic writing necessitates thinking about how this information is organized, or in other words, how we conceptualize Wikipedia as a knowledge resource. In the multilingual Indian context, generation of content in the Indian languages is a logical next step. It is with the intention of strengthening this knowledge network in the social sciences, that Women's Studies Centre, Pune University conducts content generation workshops with university researchers. The broad mandate of the digital resource generation workshop is to introduce university students to tools of collaborative knowledge production on the internet and methods for generating new online content in Indian languages under Sau Dhuni Teen Project. Also introductory session on Wiktionary.

Project aim:

Facilitate researchers to think critically about concepts and their associations
Involve researchers as active editors on the Indian language Wikipedias
Utilize Wikipedia as a platform to generate Indian language annotations of academic texts in Women's Studies and the Social Sciences

The organisers are also planning to engage the students in annotating one key women's studies text each through follow-up workshops and credit them as contributors to the "Annotated Bibliography project"

Project outcome:

9 female participants joined for this edit-a-thon and edited various articles on Marathi Wikipedia. The Marathi Wikimedia community being quite particular about the citations from Marathi-language source was somehow challenging as the participants struggled at times to find much information about many things notable. A simple step by step tutorial was created, printed and shared among the participants. Some of the participants showed interest in participating in the Train-a-Wikipedian programme that CIS-A2K is planning. Sheena D'Lima engaged with the participants by sharing her learning from Manual of Style for writing Wikipedia article.

More information about the event on Meta.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/sau-dhuni-teen-project-december-edit-a-thon

Sanskrit Wikiquote — Now Available!

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T05:07:38Z

The Access to Knowledge team at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is happy to celebrate the availability of Sanskrit wikiquote.

"The project is a store house of Subhashitas extracted from different scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharatam, etc., categorised and based on the topics with explanations. It contains idioms and phrases, witty puzzles, sayings of great people, Chitrakaavyam, etc., everything in Samskrit. It is to be noted that all these, in a single webpage is not available anywhere else in such an easily available form." says Dr. Sumana, Wikipedia Wing, Samskrita Bharati.

Shiju Alex, an ex-team member of CIS played an active role in bringing this out. It has about 1260 pages under various categories, for a ready review.

For more information, visit http://bit.ly/Y9OY9R

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/sanskrit-wikiquote

Sangeet Baithak: A Hindustani Music Resource Donation Event in Mumbai

praskrishna — 2014-10-07T04:27:49Z

The Access to Knowledge team from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-A2K) and Khayal Trust is organizing a music event on October 7, 2014 in Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. T.Vishnu Vardhan and Tejaswini Niranjana will be participating.

Neela Bhagwat will donate her comprehensive textual compilation of Gwalior Gharana bandishes. Gwalior Gharana is one of the old traditions of Hindustani gayaki and like other gayaki's the tradition has been passed on orally in the guru-shishya parampara. Pt. Neela Bhagwat has over a period of 30 years (of learning and teaching music) meticulously compiled most of the Gwalior Gharana bandishes with notations and notes. This comprehensive collection which will be scanned and hosted on Wikisource and made available under CC-BY-SA 4.0. license.

Click to download the event invite here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/sangeet-baithak

Samskrita Vaibhavam (Sanskrit Wiki Outreach Program)

Shubha and Sayant Mahato — 2014-10-31T14:02:51Z

To celebrate the revival of Sanskrit language, the Bangalore chapter of Samskrita Bharati organised a two-day mega event "Samskrita Vaibhavam" at VSR Kalyan Mantapa in Bangalore on August 9 and 10, 2014.

Competition, Conference & Exhibition

The theme of the event was promotion of Sanskrit. It offered an encapsulation of the culture and heritage woven into Sanskrit. No wonder, the event attracted more than thousand samskrita premis or Sanskrit enthusiasts, who actively participated in the proceedings.

As is well known, Samskrita Bharati with a missionary zeal, is engaged in popularising Sanskrit language and demonstrating to the world that Sanskrit cannot only be easily learnt by anyone but also by those who can easily speak in Sanskrit and transact daily activities too. Samskrita Bharati organises Samskrita Shibirams through which these concepts are popularised.

Notable during the event was a seminar on "Why Samskrit". Dr. Chamu Krishna Shastry, Samskrita Bharati; Dr. Srinivas Varkhede, Karnataka Samskrit University; Dr. Ramachandra Bhat, Veda Vignyana Gurukulam; Dr. Balachandra Rao, mathematecian and astrophysicist; Dr. VR Anil Kumar, Kalpa Heritage Trust; and Uttara Nerurkar, Vedic scholar, were the expert speakers.

Additionally, an exhibition was also organised. Here, there was a stall on "Samskrita Wikipedia" (Sa.Wikipedia). This was a grand attraction for visitors as Sanskrit Wikipedia showed that (Sanskrit) knowledge can be accessed in a split second with a click on a computer.

The Sanskrit Wikipedia wing of Samskrita Bharati is thankful for the timely support from CIS-A2K, which was used for designing and printing handbills and brochures about Sanskrit Wikipedia. The brochures, which were distributed among participants, were well appreciated as it helped them connect with Sa.Wikipedia, and the myriad possibilities available to them by learning Sanskrit.

The entire event was of great significance in the promotion of Sanskrit language.

Acknowledgement from Samskrita Bharati

This article was written by Shubha and Sayant Mahato.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/samskrita-vaibhavam