Centre for Internet and Society

Indian Law and "Parallel Exports"

pranesh — 2011-08-04T04:47:07Z

Recently, a lawyer for the publishing industry made the claim that allowing for parallel importation would legally allow for the exports of low-priced edition. Here we present a legal rebuttal of that claim.

Recently, on publisher/editor/writer Divya Dubey's blog, Saikrishna Rajagopal, a highly respected copyright lawyer and founding partner of Saikrishna & Associates, claimed that we had misconstrued the law with regard to export of books from India, and that allowing for parallel importation would harm that.

Mr Rajagopal writes:

The fundamental legal infirmity that I find in Mr. Prakash’s argument are twofold:
1. That current Indian Law allows export of low priced editions;
2. That the proposed proviso would not include within its scope 'exports'.

1. As regards the argument that current Indian Law allows export of low priced editions, the two John Wiley cases of the Delhi High Court of May 2010, make it abundantly clear that current Indian Copyright Law precludes export of low priced editions. Pertinently, an appeal was preferred in one of the Wiley cases and was dismissed. These judgments are therefore final now and therefore authoritatively, interpret Indian Copyright Law as it stands today.

I was wrong regarding the question of export of low-priced editions. There are are two Delhi High Court judgments which came out in May 2010 on export of books, holding that export of Low-Priced Editions meant for India to countries outside is unlawful (John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors v. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain & Ors and John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors v. International Book Store & Anr). However, in the first judgment Justice Manmohan Singh clearly held that it would be unlawful to export without permission of the rights owner regardless of whether we followed the doctrine of national exhaustion (disallowed parallel importation) or the doctrine of international exhaustion (allowed parallel importation), and the "the question of exhaustion of rights of owner in copyright does not arise at all".[1] Thus Mr. Rajagopals's fears are, thankfully, unfounded.

Mr. Rajagopal continues:

2. As regards Pranesh’s argument that the proposed amendment does not cover ‘exports’, this argument is completely specious. In order to determine at what stage a copyright owner loses its right to control further sale and distribution of a copyrighted product, the statute itself needs to be looked into to determine what standard of exhaustion of rights has been contemplated. If the proposed proviso becomes law, it would be a clear indicator to a Court that Indian Copyright Law follows international exhaustion, namely, that once a product is legitimately sold anywhere in the world market, the copyright owner loses/exhausts the right to control further distribution and sale, including export and import. It is because the copyright owner exhausts rights globally that the proposed amendment is allowing for genuine copies of books sold in the international market, to be legally imported into India. This being the case, there is almost unanimity amongst IP Lawyers that export of low priced editions would also be considered legal, in view of the proposed amendment. This is not just our Indian view, but also the view of other international IP experts who have had an opportunity to look at the implications of this proviso.

The copyright owner, under a proper appreciation of the Indian law, never has the right to control "further sale and distribution" (as per s.14(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act), contrary to Mr. Rajagopal's assertion. Once a copy is in circulation (e.g., is sold), the copyright owner no longer has the exclusive right to put that copy into circulation, nor to control its further sale / distribution in any manner. This is the limitation on the owner's right that allows libraries exist. This is how second-hand book shops exist. If this limitation of the copyright owner's right did not exist, libraries and second-hand book shops would need to take permissions from the owner for each copy of each book that they lend or sell.

Imports and exports are two distinct things. India's following of the principle of "international exhaustion" means that the right to first sale is exhausted in India, when the work is legally published anywhere internationally (i.e., regardless of where that copyrighted work is legally published). The principle of international exhaustion doesn't not exhaust the right of first sale internationally—the word "international" is used to indicate where the publication has to take place for exhaustion to occur, and not where the exhaustion takes place. After all, Indian law on a matter cannot determine whether a book can or cannot be sold anywhere else in the world (which is precisely what it would do if it is to hold that rights are exhausted internationally by virtue of a book being printed in India).

Having done research on this point for the past week, I have not been able to come up with any legal articles or cases to directly oppose Mr. Rajagopal's claim that the legality of book exports from a country can depend on whether it follows national or international exhaustion. It is such a novel claim that no one has made it so far, and so no one has thought to oppose it. I know of no other IP lawyers in India or internationally who agree with Mr. Rajagopal's claim that allowing for parallel importation in India will have an impact on the exports of low-priced editions from India.

Most pertinently, when the Wiley judgments which related to export of low priced editions, were being pronounced in Court, the Hon’ble Judge casually remarked that the law laid down in cases may soon become redundant if the proposed legislation comes into force.

As noted above, the judge specifically stated in the written judgment itself that as per the court's reasoning, the question of whether the export of low-priced editions is legal is not related to the question of exhaustion of rights of the owner: ". . . as the express provision for international exhaustion is absent in our Indian law, it would be appropriate to confine the applicability of the same to regional exhaustion. Be that as it may, in the present case, the circumstances do not even otherwise warrant this discussion . . . the question of exhaustion of rights of owner in the copyright does not arise at all".

To get a little bit more technical, Justice Singh rules that there is a difference between first sale (exhaustion) vis-a-vis the owner and first sale vis-a-vis the licensee. He states that only rights of the licensee have been exhausted, and that the rights of the owner being exhausted do not even arise. But he is quite clear that this difference would apply regardless of whether we follow international exhaustion or national exhaustion.

Update (2011-02-15): For the tabularly inclined, here's a summary of what it means for a country to follow "national exhaustion" or "international exhaustion":

Where copyrighted work is first circulated	Where right of circulation is exhausted	What this is termed
	What "Exhaustion" Means
In any country	In all countries	[- Not possible. - Law in one country can't dictate law in another. - Exhaustion of right of circulation "in all countries" can only be declared so through an international treaty (e.g., the way TRIPS makes a book copyrighted in all countries if it is copyrighted in any country) - Art. 6 of TRIPS doesn't allow for this interpretation.]
In any country	Domestic territory	International exhaustion
Domestic territory	In all countries	[- Not possible. - Law in one country can't affect law in another. - Exhaustion of right of circulation "in all countries" can only be declared so through an international treaty (e.g., the way TRIPS makes a book copyrighted in all countries if it is copyrighted in any country) - Art. 6 of TRIPS doesn't allow for this interpretation.]
Domestic territory	Domestic territory	National exhaustion

Thus it is seen that the "national" or "international" exhaustion only determines the question of where the book has to be first circulated for exhaustion to happen. It can never change where the right of first circulation is exhausted (which in either case can only happen at a territorial level).

The implication of the right of circulation being exhausted world-wide is that no country can by law prevent parallel importation. The TRIPS Agreement, via Article 6, decided to give each country the right to choose to allow or disallow parallel importation. This was despite a great effort by developing countries to get international exhaustion codified as the worldwide norm.

To make this even more clear, I propose the following thought experiment.

X - national of New Zealand, which follows international exhaustion.
Country 1 - a country that follows national exhaustion / doesn't allow parallel imports
Country 2 - a country that follows national exhaustion / doesn't allow parallel imports
Country 3 - a country that follows international exhaustion / allows for parallel imports

Example 1: If X buys a book from Country 1 and sells that book in Country 2, he is in violation of Country 2's laws, regardless of the laws in New Zealand and Country 1.
Example 2: If X buys a book from Country 1 and sells that book in Country 3, he is not in violation of the law (either in New Zealand or in Country 3).
Example 3: If X buys a book in New Zealand and sells that book in Country 2, he is in violation of Country 2's laws, regardless of the laws in New Zealand.
Example 4: If X buys a book in New Zealand and sells that book in Country 3, he is not in violation of the law (either in New Zealand or in Country 3).

If one takes "international exhaustion" to mean that the right is exhausted in every country, then Example 3 would be wrong. But that would be absurd, since we know from experience that it is correct: Buying a book in New Zealand and selling it in the United Kingdom (which follows national/regional exhaustion) is unlawful. So obviously "international exhaustion" doesn't mean that.

Similarly, if one takes "national exhaustion" to mean that after sale a book cannot be exported, that would imply that Example 2 is faulty. But we know from experience that this is not so: Buying a book in the United Kingdom and selling it in New Zealand is lawful. So obviously "national exhaustion" doesn't mean that.

Thus, it is only the act of import that is ever affected by the question of national vs. international exhaustion, and never exports.

Notes

[1]: Justice Manmohan Singh writes: "As per my opinion, as the express provision for international exhaustion is absent in our Indian law, it would be appropriate to confine the applicability of the same to regional exhaustion. Be that as it may, in the present case, the circumstances do not even otherwise warrant this discussion as the rights if at all are exhausted are to the extent to which they are available with the licensees as the books are purchased from the exclusive licensees who have limited rights and not from the owner. In these circumstances, the question of exhaustion of rights of owner in the copyright does not arise at all." (Para 104).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports

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

pranesh — 2011-08-22T13:28:42Z

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

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

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

admin — 2011-08-24T06:58:10Z

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

India- EU FTA: A Note on the Copyright Issues

nehaa — 2013-07-03T06:47:08Z

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Dismantling the Arguments In Favour of Increased IP Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematic Provisions

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

International Obligations

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

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

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

Copyright Expansion

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

Cross Border Measures

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

Intermediary Liability

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

IP Enforcement

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

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

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

Concluding Observations

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

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

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

[1].Hereafter referred to as the FTA.

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

[3]. Id.

[4]. Id at 5.

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

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

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

[8]. Id.

[9]. Supra note 2 at 23.

[10]. Supra note 2 at 23.

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

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

[13]. Hereafter referred to as the FTA

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

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

[16]. Supra note 14.

[17]. Supra note 12.

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

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

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

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

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

[23]. Supra note 14.

[24]. Supra note 19.

[25]. Supra note 19.

[26]. Supra note 19.

[27]. Supra note 12.

[28]. Supra note 12.

[29]. Supra note 12.

[30]. Supra note 12.

[31]. Supra note 14.

[32]. Supra note 12.

[33]. Supra note 12.

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

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

[36]. Id.

[37]. Id.

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

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

[40]. Supra note 35.

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

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

pranesh — 2012-07-23T15:24:26Z

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

In a first, Indian Singers Rights' Association distributes royalty

praskrishna — 2018-04-17T14:21:27Z

While singers say this benefits out of job artistes, the transparency in distribution remains questionable.

This info was published by the News Minute on April 14, 2018.

In a first, the Indian Singers Rights’ Association (ISRA) distributed Rs 51 lakh in royalties to singers on Friday. The beneficiaries included popular playback singers KS Chitra, P Susheela, KJ Yesudas, SP Balasubrahmanyam and Srinivas.

Speaking to The Hindu, ISRA CEO Sanjay Tandon said, “This ₹51 lakh royalty money will grow 10 fold if and when radio channels, television channels and mobile companies start paying us. Right now, only IPL teams, amusement parks and few other establishments have paid the royalty money.”

Speaking to media persons at the event, singer SP Balasubrahmanyam said, "The government has given a rule saying that royalty should reach the singers as well. This programme is organised to give a part of the shares to singers in South India. This is a good thing to be welcomed.”

In March last year, SPB and others were slapped with legal notices by renowned music director Ilaiyaraaja over performing his compositions without his explicit permission and a payment of royalty to him. While this took the singers by surprise, experts had clarified that Ilaiyaraaja was right in asking for royalty as long as he owned the copyright to the music.

Speaking to Puthiya Thalaimurai channel, singer Chitra said, "Everyone knows a singer doesn't have pension or anything. After they sing, if the song is a hit, they will get a few shows here and there. We know a lot of people who are struggling to live. This will definitely help them, especially when they are aged and cannot go to work. This royalty will really be useful. We welcome this."

Singer Srinivas added, "This is not the case where you give money to someone who already has money. This is for a singer who has disappeared after singing 4- 5 songs. He's probably struggling in a village. When the money reaches him, it is a big thing. If we meet that social responsibility, it would be a success."

However, if royalty would go to singers of all ranks remains unclear.

In a transparency review conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, that compares the publicly available information on the websites of music collective management organisations(CMOs), ISRA did not detail the “distribution of percentages, nor the administrative cut it seeks to take” as per the Copyright Amendment Act 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-news-minute-april-14-2018-first-indian-singers-rights-association-distributes-royalty

Govt for Legalising Parallel Import of Copyright Works; Publishers Oppose

Shamnad Basheer — 2011-08-30T10:19:35Z

Section 2(m) legalises the parallel imports of books and other copyrighted material into India and was part of the initial Copyright Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament of India in 2010.

Section 2(m) reads as below:

"[P]rovided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country into India shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy."

Unfortunately, the government did a sudden volte face owing to pressure from publisher lobbies and deleted it from the latest version of the Bill. The provision would have helped students gain access to the latest affordable versions of text books from around the world.

When the Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for review, the said Committee strongly supported the introduction of section 2(m) and stated as below:

"that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books."

"Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law. The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to the government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of."

Despite the Standing Committees support, it is curious as to why the government dropped this provision, particularly when it would have tremendously helped a number of students gain access to latest low priced editions of text books from around the world. It ought not to have succumbed to the pressures of the publishing lobby.

Empirical studies done on this count clearly demonstrate that publishers only introduce old versions of books in India. The latest versions have to be imported, and they are very expensive, often times costing more than what they cost in the US and EU. See the Economic Times article documenting this empirical study here.

Further, an easy right of import enables any third party to import books which could also then be made available in accessible formats to the visually impaired.

Download the Economic Times article by Shamnad Basheer here. [PDF, 470 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work

Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright

praskrishna — 2012-04-28T04:11:01Z

To commemorate Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary, the Centre for Internet and Society cordially invites you to a talk by Prof. Shyamkrishna Balganesh of the University of Pennsylvania on Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright on 30 January 2012 at 6.00 p.m.

When the copyright on Rabindranath Tagore's writings were to expire, his estate sought (and got) an extension in copyright term. But when the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi's writings were to expire, the trustees did not seek such an extension, in deference to Gandhi's views on copyright. On the cover of the first English edition of the Hind Swaraj, it states: "No Rights Reserved". Was Gandhi a Wikipedian at heart, and a prophet who foresaw the 'copyright wars' and had his own visions of how far free culture and free knowledge activism could and could not go?

Description

Central to modern discussions of copyright law is the conflict between copyright’s role as a market-based mechanism of cultural production and its detrimental effects on access to knowledge, free speech, and cultural creativity. So divisive is this debate in the world of copyright law today that some have characterized it as the ongoing “copyright wars”. In January 2009, when copyright in all of Gandhi’s works expired, to the absolute surprise of many, the Navjivan Trust,to whom Gandhi had transferred the copyright in his works, chose not to seek a statutory extension of copyright.

The Trust’s firm decision rested in large part on Gandhi’s unease with copyright law, and his reluctant acceptance of its benefits. Gandhi’s opinions on copyright law reveal a rather concerted attempt to grapple with the innumerable public and private trade-offs that are central to the institution, which are today seen as the very basis of the copyright wars. Much like Gandhi’s views on other issues, they reveal a pragmatism, nuance, and creative engagement, which likely emanate from Gandhi’s training as a lawyer. Instead of simplistically rejecting the institution in its entirety, Gandhi saw copyright law for what it is—an important social compromise—and sought to engage with it in a way that tracked his beliefs on other issues.

This talk will argue that the nuances of Gandhi’s engagement with copyright law hold important lessons for thinking about copyright law in society, and for managing its complex trade-offs. Gandhi’s thinking on the topic anticipated many of the modern dilemmas about the structure and function of copyright law--such as the role of exclusivity, the importance of control and integrity, and the costs and benefits of licensing revenues. And while Gandhi may not have had a clear (or unambiguously correct) solution to any of them, he almost certainly asked the right questions.

About the Speaker

Shyam Balganesh’s scholarship focuses on understanding how intellectual property and innovation policy can benefit from the use of ideas, concepts and structures from different areas of the common law. His most recent work tries to understand copyright law’s pre-requisite of “copying” for liability, as a mechanism of pluralistic decision-making that allows it to incorporate both utilitarian and rightsbased considerations into its functioning.

Balganesh received his J.D. from the Yale Law School, where he was an Articles and Essays Editor of the Yale Law Journal and a Student Fellow at the Information Society Project (ISP). Prior to that he spent two years as a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, and received a B.C.L. and an M.Phil in Law from Oxford University.

His recent publications include: ‘“Hot News’: The Enduring Myth of Property in News,” 111 Columbia Law Review 419 (2011); “The Pragmatic Incrementalism of Common Law Intellectual Property,” 63 Vanderbilt Law Review 1543 (2010); and “Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives,” 122 Harvard Law Review 1569 (2009), among others. He is also currently editing a collection of scholarly essays on the topic of intellectual property and the common law, scheduled to be published by the Cambridge University Press in 2012.

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright

Fixing Copyright for Education (SCCR34 Side Event)

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T00:48:42Z

This event, hosted by Communia, EIFL, Creative Commons, and PIJIP, provided an overview of legal trends and developments concerning education, and presented the reality of education today. Anubha Sinha was a speaker.

The speakers described legal challenges faced by educators using new technologies, and discussed how copyright limitations and exceptions can be adapted to be fit for education in the digital age. It was held in Geneva as a side event at WIPO’s 34th Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

Speakers:

Sean Flynn, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law. “Opening User Rights for Educational Uses.” Presentation | Data
Chichi Umesi, First Secretary, Mission Of Nigeria to the United Nations in Geneva. “The Importance of Education for Developing Countries.”
Teresa Nobre, Legal Expert on Copyright, Communia. “Mapping Obstacles to Educational Uses in Europe.” Final report | Infographic | Presentation
Delia Browne, Education Lead, Creative Commons Australia / Director, National Copyright Unit (Schools and TAFEs) Australia. “Tales from Australian Copyright Law Reform Debate.” Presentation | Background documents: Myth: Fair use would harm Australian authors | Myth: Fair use decimated educational publishing in Canada
Anubha Sinha, Centre for Internet and Society – India. “Access to Education Wins in Oxbridge Clash with Indian Photocopier.” Background document (by Lawrence Laing)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/fixing-copyright-for-education-sccr34-side-event

Feedback to Draft Copyright Rules, 2012

pranesh — 2012-10-04T04:53:47Z

The Centre for Internet & Society submitted its written comments on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 to Mr. G.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR), Ministry of Human Resource Development.

G.R. Raghavender
Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR)
Copyright Office
Department of Higher Education
Ministry of Human Resource Development
4th floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street
New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,

This submission contains comments from the Centre for Internet and Society on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012. I apologize for the slight delay in submitting these.

Yours sincerely,
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society

Relinquishment of Copyright

Analysis

The law in India allows anonymously and pseudonymously created works to be copyrighted as well, as is clear from section 23 of the Copyright Act. However, rule 8 as it currently is does not allow such authors to relinquish copyright. Relinquishment of copyright is a very different kind of act from registration of copyright, and hence it is not necessary to seek the same categories of information from both. Certain categories of information sought during registration of copyright ("class of work", "language of the work", "nationality of author") are required not because they help identify a work, but because they help in indexing the work ("class of work", "language of work") or in ensuring that the work is copyrightable in India ("nationality of author"). Such considerations do not matter when it comes to relinquishment of copyright, i.e., when a work is allowed to pass into the public domain. Further, technological progress has made it difficult to determine the answer to a question like "country of first publication", "nationality of the publisher", etc. If a work has been uploaded by an author on to his blog, is the publisher the author or the person hosting the blog? If an Indian author residing in India first publishes a work on the server located in Argentina, is the country of first publication India or Argentina? The answer to these questions does not make a difference to the issue of relinquishment of copyright. The only information that is required for relinquishment of rights is a) what work is being put in the public domain, b) by whom, c) from when.

Furthermore, the current requirements of rule 8 cannot easily be satisfied by using most of the popular means of relinquishing copyright (such as the CC0 — Creative Commons Zero — licence).

Recommendations

Rule 8 be modified to read: A public notice issued by an author relinquishing his or her rights as per subsection (1) of section 21 of the Copyright Act, shall include the following details: (a) Title of the work (b) Full name, or pseudonym, in case the work has not been created anonymously (c) Date of issuance of the notice (d) If copyright in the work is registered under section 45, the registration number.

Rule 9 be modified to read: Any one of the following shall constitute public notice of relinquishment of copyright: i. Mentioning of the notice on the work, or cover of the work, or in the metadata of the work if the work is electronic; or ii. Publication in a newspaper; or iii. Publication by the author on a publicly-accessible website

Rule 10 be modified to add the following sentence: The author shall forward a copy of the public notice to the Registrar of Copyright if copyright in the work has been registered under section 45 and on receiving such notice, the Registrar of Copyright shall post the same on the website of the Copyright Office.

Statutory Licence for Cover Versions

Analysis

Rule 34(2) is redundant and does not contain any detail not already present in the existing proviso to section 31C(1) of the Copyright Act. Additionally, Rule 35 also does not contain any detail not already present in the existing parent provision, section 31C of the Copyright Act.

Recommendations

Rules 34(2) and 35 be deleted.
Rule 37 should be modified to add a sub-rule requiring maintenance of records online.

Indexes

Analysis

In rule 71(3), it requires that the indexes be maintained in the form of cards. These are presumably physical cards. It is unclear why the rule should not require the maintenance of these indexes online to facilitate search by the public. Further entries 13 and 14 of Schedule II are from a time when the transaction costs incurred by the Registrar of Copyright for providing extracts from an Index were non-negligible, and hence it would have been necessary to charge a person for such services. With the capabilities of electronic systems, such retrievals are almost costless, and can be done without the intervention of the Registrar of Copyright. Hence entries 13 and 14 should not be made applicable to online retrievals. If copyright societies can be required to provide information free of costs on their websites (as per rule 65), the Registrar of Copyright should be required to do so too.

Recommendation

Modify sub-rule (3) of rule 71 to read: "Every Index shall be available online as a downloadable database, with an online search facility."

Modify the second sentence in rule 72 to read: "The online search or inspection of the Register of Copyrights and Indexes can be utilised free of cost."

Storage of Transient or Incidental Copies of a Work

Analysis

It is not clear enough from the language of rule 74 that it applies only to s.52(1)(c) and not to s.52(1)(b). Since only s.52(1)(c) has a complaints mechanism, this should be made clear.

Importantly, to protect the interest of the public, the intermediaries should be asked to give public notice regarding the alleged infringing copy to ensure that the take-down mechanism is not abused, and secondly to ensure that the public can independently verify that intermediaries are following the requirement in rule 74(4) of restoring storage of the work if no court order is forthcoming within 21 days.

Lastly, there is no clear precedent in India to treat a uniform resource identifier (URI) as 'place' for purposes of section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore it is necessary to further clarify the meaning of the term 'place' as used in current Rule 74(2)(d). This would be best served by using the correct technological term ("URI") instead of the word "place".

Recommendation

Modify sub-rule (1) of rule 74 to: "Any owner of copyright may give a written complaint as per clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 52 of the Copyright Act to a person who has facilitated..."

Add sub-rule (6) to rule 74: "The person responsible for storage shall put up a public notice thereby notifying all persons requesting access to the alleged infringing copy by stating reasons for restraining such access whether during the period of 21 days from the complaint from the copyright owner, or pursuant to an order from a competent court."

Modify rule 74(2) to read: "Details of the specific uniform resource identifier (URI) where transient or incidental storage of the work may be taking place."

Making or Adapting the Work by Organizations Working for the Benefit of Persons with Disabilities

Analysis

Rule 75 requires organizations making use of the exception granted under s.52(1)(zb) to maintain records. This could not have been the intention of the legislature in passing s.52(1)(zb), since that provision does not require any maintenance of records. Indeed, none of the exceptions ennume-rated in s.52(1) require the maintenance of records. This is in contrast with s.31B, which is also applicable to organizations working for the benefit of persons with disabilities, but only those that are doing so as a for-profit venture. Rule 29(6) already requires the Registrar of Copyright to notify the grant of a licence under s.31B in the Official Gazette. That provision may be modified to add that the Registrar of Copyright maintains these records in a centralized database that can be queried online.

Recommendations

Delete rule 75, and modify rule 29(6) to include a centralized database.

Technological Protection Measures

Analysis

Most experts seem to hold that s.65A of the Indian Copyright Act does not affect circumvention tools, as it only deals with the act of unauthorized circumvention and not with the tools, in sharp contrast with s.1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US, which criminalises the "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provision, or otherwise trafficking in any [circumvention] technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof". The Indian law has conciously chosen not to emulate the DMCA in this respect, as the WIPO Copyright Treaty does not require it.

The broad understanding of "facilitation" contained the Copyright Rules unfortunately seem to undermine this clear distinction. If facilitation is understood to include offer to the public, provision, or distribution, as seems to be the case in Rule 79(3) and 79(4), then law becomes unworkable with each and every website that allows for the downloading of any software that can be used to play DVDs, etc., must specifically keep a register of downloaders from India. This is unnecessary, and goes beyond the intent of s.65A, which is to cover those who actively facilitate circumvention and not those who make available the tools to circumvent. This distinction should not be blurred.

Recommendation

Delete sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 79.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012

Entertainment industry and Internet piracy in focus

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T10:00:54Z

The first-of-its-kind initiative by the anti-piracy cell of the Kerala Police to register cases against 1,010 Internet users for uploading or downloading the Malayalam film Bachelor Party has sparked a debate between social media experts and legal puritans on what the law actually says.

Krishnadas Rajagopal's article was published in the Hindu on September 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Prashant Iyengar are quoted.

Internet users and anti-monopoly advocates say the police action against movie downloaders is “questionable.” They argue how the Copyright Act, 1957, has given wide exception to those who disseminate copyright works for “personal and private use.”

Legal puritans, on the other hand, quote the same 1957 law and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, to argue that the State police have not done anything wrong.

They say the act of uploading and downloading a copyrighted cinematographic work amounts to publishing and transmitting it, respectively.

They cite Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000, that says a “hacker,” if found guilty, can get three years’ imprisonment, a fine up to Rs.2 lakh, or even both.

That’s not all. Section 43 of the same statute prescribes that a “hacker” may have to cough up Rs.1 crore in compensation in case of “damage to the computer system.”

Middle line

Some others draw the middle line about the police’s drive. They say that though downloading is as illegal as buying a pirated CD from the market and “ignorance of law is no excuse to escape prosecution under an existing law,” the sheer magnitude of registering mass cases against downloaders, probably on a global scale, is impractical.

“It is questionable whether downloading for personal use by itself constitutes an offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Act has created a wide exception for personal and private use,” says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager for Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance and Freedom of Speech at The Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

The usage “personal and private use” in the Act can be better understood in the contrast — that is, downloading without any intention to “disseminate the cinematographic work to a community you are not provisionally associated to.”

Legislative intent

Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies, Jindal Global Law School, says the legislative intent behind the wide exceptions given to dissemination of work in the 1957 law is actually strengthening the public domain.

“In India under the Copyright Act, we have a robust regime of fair dealing rights to ensure that information cannot be monopolised at the expense of the public’s access to information,” he says.

He refers to Section 52 of the Act that allows reproduction of literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works for research and private uses without any “quantitative restriction” on the amount that may be copied. “However, cinematographic works do not fall under this exception,” he says.

Under Section 51, a single copy of a cinematographic work could be “imported” to India for personal and domestic use. This would not amount to copyright infringement.

“But it is currently unsettled in law whether Section 51 would protect users downloading movies for their personal use. On the other hand, if you receive a copy of a movie CD by post, this section would clearly apply,” Mr. Iyengar says.

Pavan Duggal, senior Supreme Court lawyer specialising in cyber laws, differs in his opinion. As far as he is concerned, the law is clear against copyright infringement.

He says unauthorised downloading of movies also attracts action under the IT Act, 2000. “The legal perspective is that when you upload a pirated copy, you are doing an act of publishing and when you click the ‘download’ button, you are transmitting data in an electronic format for the purpose of diminishing the value of electronic information,” he says.

“The Kerala Police have not done anything fundamentally wrong by registering cases against uploaders and downloaders. When I am creating a film, I have copyright to both cinematic and electronic versions. In case of infringement, I can act by suing for damages, injunction, in addition to exposing the person to criminal liability under the Copyright Act,” Mr. Duggal says.

However, Mr. Iyengar vehemently counters the point. He asks a “pertinent” question — how the Kerala Police conducted their probe and how the Internet Protocol addresses were obtained when Internet service providers have strict privacy obligations against disclosure of any such details, except to government authorities.

“In this case, one hears that a private investigation firm called ‘Jadoo Infotech’ was involved in conducting ‘cyber-patrolling,’ which is not authorised by any law. They would be guilty of the digital equivalent offence of ‘lurking house trespass’,” Mr. Iyengar says.

But Nandagopal Rajan, an associate editor with a technology magazine in Delhi, has a simple logic grounded in law.

“Anybody who is downloading illegally cannot seek protection. You are actually doing something illegal. On the flip side, how many people can you prosecute?” he asked.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-sep-17-2012-krishnadas-rajagopal-entertainment-industry-and-internet-piracy-in-focus

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Speech on Intermediary Liability at 22nd SCCR of WIPO

pranesh — 2012-06-01T15:01:08Z

This is a speech made by Pranesh Prakash at an side-event co-organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Internet Society on intermediary liability, to coincide with the release of Prof. Lillian Edwards's WIPO-commissioned report on 'Role and Responsibility of the Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright'.

Good afternoon. I've been asked to provide a user's perspective to the question of intermediary liability. "In what cases should an Internet intermediary—a messenger—be held liable for the doings of a third party?" is the broad question. I believe that in answering that question we can be guided by two simple principles: As long as intermediaries don't exercise direct editorial control, they should not be held liable; and as long as they don't instigate or encourage the illegal activity, they should not be held liable. In all other cases, attacking Internet intermediaries generally a sign of 'shooting the messenger'. General intermediary liability and intermediary liability for copyright infringement share a common philosophical foundation, and so I will talk about general intermediary liability first.

While going about holding intermediaries liable, we must remember that what is at stake here is the fact that intermediaries are a necessary component of ensuring freedom of speech and self-expression on the World Wide Web. In this regard, we must keep in mind the joint declaration issued by four freedom of expression rapporteurs under the aegis of the Organization of American States on June 1, 2011:

Intermediary Liability

a. No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).

b. Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extra-judicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).

It is useful to keep in mind what the kind of liability we affix on offline intermediaries: Would we hold a library responsible for unlawful material that a user has placed on its shelves without its encouragement?

Ensuring a balanced system of intermediary liability is also very important in preserving the forms of innovations we have seen online. Ensuring that intermediaries aren't always held liable for what third parties do is an essential component of encouraging new models of participation, such as Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has community-set standards with regard to copyright, obscenity, and other such issues, holding the Wikimedia Foundation (which has only around 30-40 people) itself responsible for what millions of users write on Wikipedia will hamper such new models of peer-production. This point, unfortunately, has not prevented the Wikimedia Foundation being sued a great number of times in India, a large percentage of which take the form of SLAPP ('strategic lawsuit against public participation') cases, since if the real intention had been to remove the offending content, editing Wikipedia is an easy enough way of achieving that.

While searching for these balanced solutions, we need to look beyond Europe, and look at how countries like Chile, Brazil, India and others are looking at these issues. Unfortunately, this being Geneva, most of the people I see represented in this room are from the developed world as are the examples we are discussing (France and Spain).

In India, for instance, the Internet Service Providers Association made it clear in 2006 (when there was an outcry over censorship of blogging platforms) that they do not want to be responsible for deciding whether something about which they have received a complaint is unlawful or not.

With respect to copyright and the Internet, while the Internet allows for copyright infringement to be conducted more easily, it also allows for copyright infringement to be spotted more easily. Earlier, if someone copied, it would be difficult to find out. Now that is not so. So, that balance is already ingrained, and while many in the industry focus on the fact of easier infringement and thus ask for increased legal protection, such increase in legal protection is not required since the same technological factors that enable increased infringement also enable increased ability to know about that infringement.

On the Internet, intermediaries sometimes engage in primary infringement due to the very nature of digital technology. In the digital sphere, everything is a copy. Thus, whenever you're working on a computer, copies of the copyrighted that show up on your screen are automatically copied to your computer's RAM. Whenever you download anything from the Internet, copies of it are created en route to your computer. (That is the main reason that exceptions in the copyright laws of most countries that allow you to re-sell a book you own don't apply to electronic books.) In such a case, intermediaries must be specially protected.

Additionally, online activities that we take for granted, for instance search technologies, violate the copyright law of most countries. For online search technology to be reasonably fast (instead of taking hours for each search), the searching has to be done on a copies (cache) of actual websites instead of the actual websites. For image searching, it would be unreasonable to expect search companies to take licences for all the images they allow you to search through. Yet, not doing so might violate the copyright laws of many countries. No one, or so one would think, would argue that search engines should be made illegal, but in some countries copyright law is being used to attack intermediaries.

As noted above, intermediaries are a necessary part of online free speech. Current methods of regulating copyright infringement by users via intermediaries online may well fall afoul of internationally accepted standards of human rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his recent report to the UN Human Rights Council stated:

While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely.

The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by discussions regarding a centralized “on/off” control over Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three-strikes law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.

Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression.

With respect to graduated response, there is very little that one can add to Prof. Edwards's presentation. I would like to add one further suggestion that Prof. Ed Felten originally put forward as a 'modest proposal': Corporations which make or facilitate three wrongful accusations should face the same penalty as the users who are accused thrice. The recent US strategy of seizing websites even before trial has been sufficiently criticised, so I shall not spend my time on it.

I still have not seen any good evidence as to why for other kinds of primary or secondary liability incurred by online intermediaries the procedure for offline copyright infringement should not apply, since they are usually crafted taking into account principles of natural justice.

The only 'international' and slightly troublesome issue that a resolution is needed to is that of problems relating to different jurisdiction’s laws applying on a single global network. However, this question is much larger one that of copyright and a copyright-specific solution cannot be found. Thus WIPO is not the right forum for the redress of that problem.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intermediary-liability-wipo-speech

Do You Have the Right to Unlock Your Smart Phone?

puneeth — 2013-08-07T07:32:52Z

In this blog post Puneeth Nagaraj looks at the recent controversy over the expiration of the exemption granted by the US Library of Congress for unlocking phones and compares the Indian position as per a 2005 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment.

Being a gadget freak in India is difficult. Smartphone companies take months to release their latest product in India (if they do at all) and even when they are released, they are overpriced. For instance, Google's offering in the entry level tablet market, the Nexus 7 was released in India only in April — a full 9 months after its US debut. It is priced at Rs. 16,000 (USD 300) while it costs only USD 200 in the US. Google’s other device Nexus 10 is yet to make its way to the Indian market.

For long, the Indian gadget freak has relied on friends or family travelling abroad to get his/her hands on the latest gadgets on offer. It was not uncommon in the days following the release of the earlier models of the iPhone for eager owners of foreign bought phones to unlock or “jailbreak” their phones so they could use it in India. But the practice of “jailbreaking” or “android rooting” (hereinafter referred to as unlocking [*] for convenience) phones serves a wider purpose. Unlocking smart phones allows users to overcome limitations imposed by hardware manufacturers or carriers. As a result, users can freely switch service providers. While some manufacturers (like Apple) strongly oppose unlocking- even threatening to cancel warranty in case of unlocked devices, others do not mind it and some (like Google and HTC) even encourage it.

US Library of Congress Exemption

The whole controversy surrounding the legality of unlocking phones started in the US last October when the Library of Congress decided against renewing a copyright exemption it granted in 2006. As a result, the exemption expired in January and caused a furore in the US. The DMCA (1201 of the USC), prohibits circumvention of technological measures that protect access to a copyrighted work. This sort of protection is necessary to protecting copyrighted works in a digital format. But the US Congress was informed of the restrictive effects of such a prohibition. Consequently, the Congress created statutory exemptions to allow circumvention of these technological measures and empowered the Library of Congress to grant or renew such exemptions.

Despite the exemption granted by the Library of Congress in 2006, many phone companies successfully sued hardware providers who enabled unlocking of phones. With the expiration of the exemption in January, the status of phone unlocking hangs in a balance. This is especially troublesome as it is a widespread and in some cases essential practice. Both the White House and the FCC have been petitioned to legalise unlocking. In response, four different proposals have been tabled in the US Congress just for this purpose (here is an analysis of each of the bills).

At the moment, the unlocking of phones to run unapproved software is still legal as a result of an exemption granted in 2012. But this is also up for review in 2015. There is a need for a more comprehensive solution to address both these issues and the proposals before the Congress fall short.

Indian Position

Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh
A case based on the unlocking of phones came before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2005. Certain Employees of TATA Indicom had facilitated the migration of customers contracted to Reliance for 3 years by unlocking their phones. Representatives of Reliance filed a criminal complaint against them alleging criminal breach of trust (IPC Section 409), cheating (IPC Section 420) and criminal conspiracy (IPC Section 120). They also claimed the violation of copyright and sought punishment under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, as well as Section 65 of the IT Act.

The court dismissed the criminal petitions under the IPC, IT Act and the Copyright Act. However, on the question of copyright infringement, the court held that if a person alters computer programme of another person or another computer company, the same would be infringement of copyright. The court also found that a cell phone would fall under the definition of a computer under Section 2(1) (i) of the Information Technology Act. Consequently, the court held that Section 65 of the IT Act, which deals with the tampering of computer source documents, would be applicable to the present case. The decision itself may not have precedent value on the issue as the High Court was merely ruling on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the above provisions and sent the matter back to the trial court to decide based on the evidence available. But the opinion of the court on copyright infringement and the IT Act is troubling.

Criticism

First, the court used the rather expansive definition of computers in the IT Act (Section 2(1) (i)) to include mobile phones as well. The definition under the above section reads as under:

any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.

It would not be unreasonable to see smartphones as being capable of “high speed data processing” or “input, output, processing, storage”. However, the phones in question here were basic Samsung N191 and LG-2030 phones (images of these phones can be seen here and here). Even if it might be conceivable that such basic phones can be put in the same bracket as desktop computers or laptops, the court had to examine the definition in the context of the substantial provision. In this case, the substantial provisions were Section 65 and 66 of the IT Act, which deal with tampering source documents and hacking computer systems respectively. So, by equating a basic mobile phone to a computer, the court equated unlocking a mobile phone to hacking a computer. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Section 66 prescribes criminal punishment to hackers.

Second, the court also erred in its ruling on the Copyright Act. Once again, the court held a basic phone to mean a computer under Section 2(ffb). More worryingly, it was held that the Electronic Serial Number (ESN), a unique code given to every phone would qualify as a computer program under Section 2(ffc) and is thus subject to copyright under Section 14 of the Copyright Act. In doing so, the court has set the bar extremely low for copyrightablity of computer programs. Needless to say this judgment needs to be reconsidered if not watered down. While there is recognition that bootloader protection programmes barely meet the standard for copyright, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted protection to a randomly generated 11 digit number.

Fortunately, the case of Syed Asifuddin was not a final ruling on the issue as the court sent the matter back to the trial court. However, there is every chance that a future court can rely on the erroneous reasoning in this case. Further, fair use arguments can always be mad in the favour of an individual consumer who wishes to migrate to another service provider.

The larger problem is that by giving an expansive meaning to the provisions in the Copyright Act and the IT Act, it can be used to target businesses that facilitate unlocking devices that can be targeted (like in the US). Unlike in the US, phone unlocking is not a business in India and is usually done by small business owners who sell and repair mobiles. The consequences of suing such businesses can be worse in India as they can end up in jail for an act that falls in an undefined area of the law. It seems that the situation may be resolved in the US in the near future in favour of the consumer — although the issue of the business of unlocking phones must be resolved finally. The position in India is worrisome especially due to the threat of criminal persecution.

[*]. The term jailbreaking is used specifically in the case of iOS devices and android rooting, as the name suggests is used in the case of android devices. Technically speaking, they are very different given that most android devices do not restrict access to their “bootloaders”. Acknowledging the difference between the two, the discussion here is focused on overriding technological measures meant to protect underlying copyrighted works.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/do-you-have-right-to-unlock-your-smart-phone

Disability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations

rishi — 2015-01-12T02:14:53Z

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

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

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

Country-wise Exceptions in Copyright Legislations

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

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

Delhi High Court’s Ruling Against Publishers is a Triumph For Knowledge

sinha — 2016-09-26T15:07:07Z

The court conclusively stated that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction would not constitute infringement.

The article was published in the Wire on September 23, 2016.

In a landmark judgment, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Delhi high court has held that reproducing books and distributing copies thereof for the purpose of education is not copyright infringement. The ruling legitimises the practice of photocopying prevalent in universities and other spaces of learning. The question of whether such photocopying without the permission of the copyright holders was legal arose in 2013. A group of five prominent publishers had filed a suit against the University of Delhi and its photocopying service provider, alleging infringement of their copyrighted titles. Specifically, they argued that the infringement arose from widely used ‘course packs’ which were photocopies of collated passages and chapters from various titles and, sometimes included entire books as well. At the heart of the matter lay the interests of students and their rights and ability to access education, academics invested in the importance of readership and the free flow of knowledge and the publishers who claimed that photocopies hurt their sales and that they ought to benefit from this practice, monetarily. The publishers wanted the court to restrain the defendants from committing ‘institutionalised infringement’ and make them apply for bouquet licenses to carry on with the practice of photocopying.

The suit caused a huge furore. Soon, students and academics joined the fray to mount a stronger defence against the publishers. Notably, Amartya Sen wrote a letter urging the publishers to reconsider the action. Thirty three academics delivered a joint statement against the suit and intervened as the Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge, or SPEAK, while students put forth their interests through the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge, or ASEAK.

Pending the adjudication of the matter, the court proceeded to temporarily injunct the preparation of such course packs.

The copyright law rests on a delicate balance between the interests of copyright owners (authors, publishers, creators, artists) and copyright users (those who use and enjoy the works). The law is designed to encourage the creation of works and simultaneously, to permit the users to enjoy the works and promote arts and knowledge.

In the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, section 52 lists a number of scenarios which do not constitute infringement, including a fair dealing provision. In other words, the section is the bulwark for public enjoyment of copyrighted work – it allows largely purposive acts, including fair dealing, tied to bona fide use and copying in research, educational institutions, libraries, review, reportage, criticism, incidental copying and a greater degree of use for the benefit of disabled people.

The act of photocopying, the court ruled, is reproduction of the work and constitutes infringement, unless it is listed under section 52. It found that the acts of photocopying, preparing course packs and their distribution fell within the ambit of section 52(1)(i), which states that “the reproduction of any work – by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction”, would not constitute infringement. Interpreting the clause in an expansive manner, the court deemed that the application of the clause is not limited to an individual teacher-student relationship, but is applicable to educational institutions and organisations such as DU and thus, the law must reflect the realities of our burgeoning educational system.

The publishers contended that use of the copyrighted material should occur only during the course of the instruction, that is, in classroom lectures. The court disagreed and held that the course of instruction “…include(s) reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues during the entire academic session for which the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and pupil but is a process commencing from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, that the pupil stands instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher to learn.”

Whereas the court liberally interpreted the provision on educational institutions, it also rigidly laid out the contours of the copyright law, pivotal in enabling public enjoyment of works. It held that copyright is a statutory right and not a natural or a common law right. Thus, the nature of copyright is limited and is subject to limitations and exceptions set in the law. It further added that “Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.”

On the issue of charging a nominal fee (40 paise per page), it was held that the said rates could not cumulatively amount to be competing with the sales price of the books. They were reasonable operational costs and only if the reproduction charges were similar to the books, could they have been said to be functioning commercially. Furthermore, the court observed that in an age of technological advancement, any act of copying for the purpose of education (within the ambit of section 52) – whether by pen and paper, or photocopying machines, or by students clicking pictures of textbooks on their cellphones should be permissible.

Justice Endlaw also pointed out that this flexing of user rights is in conformity with several international treaties. India is a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement and the Bern Convention, which allows India to decide “as to what extent utilisation of copyrighted works for teaching purpose is permitted..(provided) that the same is to the extent justified by the purpose” and does not “unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the author.”

This fresh jurisprudence is a vindicates the freedom to exchange ideas and knowledge, which is crucial to fostering an excellent learning space. This will also ensure that eager students and teachers in developing countries freely share latest research and publications, without the slightest hesitation of operating in a grey area. Justice Endlaw’s judgment has aptly restored the public-serving face of copyright law, which is a huge triumph for access to knowledge.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge