Centre for Internet and Society

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: The Grey Market Deficit

sachia — 2011-08-04T04:41:47Z

In this, the third entry in his series discussing the making of 'Dark Fibre' by Jamie King and Peter Mann, Siddharth Chadha gives an overview of piracy in the pay TV industry.

Television emerged as one of the biggest gainers in a post-liberalisation India during the '90s. From 41 television sets and one channel in 1962, the country has come a long way, with over 130 million homes with televison. Cable TV has spurred an unprecedented revolution for the entertainment and advertising industry. As a country where more than half the population lives on a daily income of less than USD 1 but swears by its Indian Premier League, India has also emerged as the Asian giant in pay TV piracy. The Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia, in a pan-Asia survey, pegged the net loss of revenue to the television industry due to pay TV piracy at USD 1.1 Billion in 2008. In its annual report published last year, it estimates that over 21.64 million cable TV homes went unreported, either on account of theft or leakage by local cable operators. This is almost one-fouth of the 8.5 million existing cable TV connections across the country. The report also suggests that 65 percent of the total loss of USD 1.76 Billion due to cable TV piracy in Asia comes from India alone, followed by Thailand at USD 180 Million.

According to Shashi Kumar, the General Manager of Hathway Cable TV Private Limited, a Multi Service Operator, 'All cable operators report only 10-15 percent of their total subscriber base. Obviously, the piracy figures in this industry will be very high.' A cable operator in Bangalore, on the condition of being anonymous, discloses, 'We are providing cable TV connections to over 800 homes. But we declare only 250, because that is the minimum number of connections that the MSO wants. There are not enough margins in the business to sustain accurate reporting.' The average cost of setting up a cable operation now runs into crores of rupees and the business is not lucrative if it is entirely clean. The average price for a digital cable connection charged by an MSO to the local cablewallah is between Rs. 180-200, the charge to the end consumer is Rs. 250 per connection per month. This does not seem to spell profit for the cable operators. 'An amplifier alone costs Rs. 3500 per unit and serves about 20 homes. The cost of the RJ6 cable is Rs. 4300 a bundle. How can we be expected to do business on a profit margin of Rs. 50 per month? If the margins were higher, perhaps operators would not leak connections,' adds the cable operator.

While Multi Service Operators seem to be fed up of the situation, there is not much they can do about it. 'There are already 5-6 national level MSOs. And then there are new entrants into the market every month. Despite knowing that the cable operators are under-reporting connections, we continue to work on minimum level subscriptions because the market is extremely competitive. If we take action against a cable operator, we would lose out on whatever business we have to a new player,' adds Shashi, while describing the operations of their company.

The industry is now looking at growth in the number of Direct To Home subscribers as a deterrent to piracy. Estimates suggest that by 2015, over 40 percent of subscribers in the pay TV universe is likely to comprise DTH owners, up from the current five percent. Frightened of repeated instances of signal piracy on their networks, broadcasters are now investing in signal encryption technology, to ward of the pirates. However, till DTH television becomes the norm rather than the exception, one can expect more tussles between the broadcasters, Multi Service Operators, regulators and cablewallahs, in the world of pay TV piracy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-dark-fibre-files-the-grey-market-deficit

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Interview with Jamie King and Peter Mann

siddharth — 2011-08-04T04:41:31Z

Film-makers Jamie King (producer/director of the 'Steal This Film' series) and Peter Mann, in conversation with Siddharth Chadha, on 'Dark Fibre', their latest production, being filmed in Bangalore

'Dark Fibre' is a documentary/fiction hybrid by J. J. King, producer/director of the 'Steal This Film' series, which has already reached over six million people online and is working towards achieving international television distribution, and Peter Mann, a British film-maker whose most recent work is titled 'Sargy Mann'.

'Dark Fibre' is set amongst the cablewallahs of Bangalore, and uses the device of cabling to traverse different aspects of informational life in the city. It follows the lives of real cablewallahs and examines the political status of their activities.The fictional elements arrive in the form of a young apprentice cablewallah who attempts to unite the disparate home-brew networks in the city into a grassroots, horizontal 'people's network'. Some support the activity and some vehemently oppose it -- but what no one expects is the emergence of a seditious, unlicensed and anonymous new channel which begins to transform people's imaginations in the city. Our young cable apprentice is tasked with tracking down the channel, as powerful political forces array themselves against it. Not only the 'security' of the city, but his own wellbeing depend on whether he finds it, and whether it proves possible to stop its distribution. Meanwhile, mysterious elements from outside India -- possibly emissaries of a still-greater power -- are appearing on the scene. This quest for the unknown channel is reminiscent of a modern-day 'Moby Dick', with the city of Bangalore as the high seas and our cable apprentice a reluctant Ahab. The action is a combination of verite, improvisation and scripted action.

In conversation with Jamie and Peter in Bangalore

Q: How did you get the idea to make Dark Fibre, a fiction film?

Peter:

We first met through BritDoc--British Documentary--and they run Channel 4 which is a Film Foundation. They have been good to us. They funded both Steal This Film and 'Sargy Mann'--a film on my father who is a blind man. They organised a meeting of all the directors they had funded and we met there. We were both thinking about what to do next and felt frustrated because we were making documentaries but really wanted to make fiction. We both shared the same ideas, with regard to shooting something completely as it is but presenting it in a fictional context.

Jamie:

And furthermore, we agreed that documentaries are not really real life. Because at the end of the day, I will keep only what I like, make you look at the way I want you to, I would cut you out of the picture if I don't agree with you. This happens even with the most worthy of the films. And you can be more truthful in fiction because its always a subjective truth. Fiction allows things to remain more real. I don't need an argument in the film. If I can just say, here is one guy's story and this is his story, then you can see the city with no bullshit. The story would allow you to look at things as they are; it's partly that idea behind Dark Fibre.

Peter:

This is in some way related to the concept of the artistic truth. You use all the tools at your disposal to tell a story, not just literal facts. This is about presenting things within an atmosphere, presenting things in a context. This then adds up to someone understanding something about the world, and I think fiction serves that better than documentary.

Q: What brings you to India to make Dark Fibre?

Jamie:

I think the cablewallah networks are unique. I have never seen anything like this anywhere else myself. India is also in a very, very interesting time and place. The idea of information as a commodity is alive here as it isn't in many other places. The value of information is very high here. There is a western imaginary of Bangalore which is immediately fascinating. It's the place where our information is processed. This is where our credit card and our phone data goes. And it enters a weird black market that we don't understand. This is the cliché. We already have cliché films about Bombay and call centers. We do not want to put a call center into the film because that is already the imagined cliché vision of Bangalore. It is obviously far more sophisticated than that. And in some ways it is far patchier than that. Who are these information workers? What are they doing and at which level are they doing it? Are they the street workers putting cables into walls or is it the guy at Infosys who is hiring people and teaching them to fake English accents? Which is the real information worker? That variegation of information life in Bangalore is interesting, not just to us, but, I think, to everybody. Information dexterity is perceived as the signature of Northern dominance. The ability to manipulate information, to move intellectual property, to transform an idea into a product, to transform someone else's idea into your property. That kind of dexterity is seen as the keynote of western dominance. And watching a developing country transform into an information dextrous economy, seeing information dextrous people is amazing. And then there is the patchiness of it--who gets left behind? Who gets included? Whats missed out and what is added in that vision? How is it manipulated in favor of big businesses? And all of this is fascinating not only from an orientalist's point of view but from a general economic-socio-political point of view.

Q: What is the underlying concept that brought about Dark Fibre?

Jamie:

While making 'Steal This Film' we spent a year on a 36 minute film trying to make an argument that would be staunch, impactful, and radical. What we learned is that it's very difficult to set out to argue your way to the truth. It's relatively easier to let the world itself speak and in the meanwhile observe it in detail. The kind of issues we are engaging with in Dark Fibre are around people's relationships with information and their relationship with freedom. These are very, very hard to nail down and speak about in a radical way. These are things left to the Intellectual Property lawyers, it's already happening, it's already cliché. All the arguments are already written. And even after a year of Steal This Film, it's shown in liberal universities – Wait! Liberal universities? I was supposed to be an anarchist! We want to go further. We want to tell people things through an image.

Peter:

Our idea of relationships is exploring the parallel physical communications networks and the virtual networks. In a city like Bangalore you see it. The traffic here is chaotic but it works. How? There is no answer to that. But it provokes questions. Through Dark Fibre, we are trying to say that there is a potential network in the city (cablewallahs) which is currently being unused and asking what it would take to unlock that potential and where would it take us if that really happens.

Q: Why the cablewallahs? What is so fascinating about them?

Jamie:

Yes, we are interested in the cablewallah network and I think it's quite perverse that it makes people from around here laugh. You see cablewallahs as a fact of life, probably a mundane fact of life. Westerners, Europeans, who are used to orderly deployments of information technology are completely blown away when you tell them that this is how it works in India. Ad hoc, grassroots, messy, out of control.

Peter:

To the West, it is just unthinkable that the government would allow something like these networks, which supply 24 hours television. To not have these under government control is unthinkable.

Jamie:

So, obviously, we are at a point of transition where it's unthinkable to the Global North and it would become unthinkable here too. We are in the middle of that shift and thats one of the things we are trying to document; the network form, which is horizontal, ad hoc and on the street, becomes not only regulated but seditious.

Q: Why would you call it seditious?

Jamie:

Because it begins to be seen as almost dangerous. As the regulators move in, they take Direct to Home control of all the deployments of their intellectual properties. The older networks start to look not only like intellectual property right infringements, but their disorder is also seen to be terrorist.

Q: What is the film trying to propose through linking these cablewallah networks?

Jamie:

Our proposal in this film is - "What if instead of just dying peacefully, someone had the idea of transforming these networks that used to deliver international and local content, by connecting them together, and turning them in to massive local media networks which are used for media sharing, file sharing, your own local channel?" There is a potential because the network is already there.

Peter:

In a way, if you think about the microcosm idea of the Internet as a whole, that essentially is what our plot is. On a certain level you would say that it's just a network but then the internet is the most important driving force of the world today.

Jamie:

The point is that once this idea is out, we can create the infrastructure to connect the entire city, infrastructure we can all use. Everyone starts to have a stake in it, be it the newspapers, TV channels, pirate markets (they will say, "No one is buying our shit anymore because they can share it over the network"), the computer manufacturers, the importer of Chinese routers, a gangster who thinks he can advertise on the network, the intellectual property lawyer... different people start getting the idea that they might have something to do with this network. Basically this is a chaos scenario, from which arises the plot. It is a fictional scenario but is set in the reality of information sharing here today.

Q: What is the technique you use to make the plot hybrid fictional?

Jamie:

The main character is played by an actor and he will be an embedded actor, working with the real cablewallah. Parts of it will be documentary, seeing how the cablewallah works and the viewer, through watching this actor, will understand how the network works. We have already spoken to some cablewallahs. And they have been very happy about all this. We see this as sort of embedded journalism, where the embedded actor takes the place of an interviewer. The film is not going to be historical. The characters will have a background and the film is going to have a background, but what we are trying to do is show the 'now'. We want to make it speak about the past and speak about the future. About our future.

Q: 'Steal This Film' was a critique of the international intellectual property regimes. Would this film also be similarly advocative?

Jamie:

We are going to the next level from 'Steal This Film', and this is more of my argument than Peter's -- that the conversation about Intellectual Propery is over or the film is the last word at all. But I personally need to go somewhere else to say more. I am interested in information in general. And how information affects what we can think, what we can dream, what we can be, how it forms all of us -- that is what we are working on in 'Dark Fibre' and the question of intellectual property is a subset of that question. We spend a lot of time talking about ideas and that's one of the things that connects us. We want to articulate a lot of the philosophical, abstract ideas in this film. And we will see if we can manage to do it in a new context. 'Steal This Film' interested a few people and this will be the next point of departure for discussion.

Q: Peter, do you share Jamie's passion for Intellectual Property?

Peter:

Not in the same way. I am very interested in the subject. Anybody who creates work is interested in it. In my last film, there is a constant commentary of a test match going on and as a result of it, it is almost impossible to sell it to television; people who own the rights to the cricket say that we have to pay them thousands of pounds! I am interested in documenting the world as it is and not what is cleaned up for TV. I am interested in the specifics. If you get on a bus in London, the ringtone everyone has on a mobile phone is not a ringtone but a particular song. But you can't put that on film because Mick Jagger, or whoever the artiste is, will want ten thousand pounds for it. The frustration that I face is that it is impossible to put the world that I see in front of me on film. I used to work with TV commercials and you would never see anything in commercials that is not the product being sold. I was once working on a Coca Cola commercial in New York and there was a person who was appointed by Coca Cola to go around the whole set to ensure that no one is drinking anything that is not made by Coca Cola, whether that is water or juice. Anything. And I think all that is about creating a creased world that we don't live in. I am interested in the world, through documentaries or fiction, that we live in. And it is bits of music, it is referenced films, we reference music, we reference sport. Just because people have rights over these, you never see them on film. That is my main area of interest, more than what is happening on the legal front.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dark-fibre-files

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Cable TV Technology for Dummies

sachia — 2011-08-04T04:41:52Z

In the fourth entry documenting the making of 'Dark Fibre', a film by Jamie King and Peter Mann, Siddharth Chadha simplifies cable TV technology for the uninitiated.

Confused about the difference between an MSO and a COAX? Well, this will simplify cable TV for you.

The system of providing television to consumers using radio frequency signals transmitted to televisions using fixed optical fibers or co-axial cables is called cable television. This is different from the over-the-air method used in traditional television broadcasting (via radio waves) for which a television antenna is required. FM radio programming, high-speed internet, telephony, and similar non-television services may also be provided.

Still confused? It's simple.

Your local cablewallah is a Private Cable Operator, a private small cable company dealing/competing with the Multi System Operators (MSO), who is an operator of multiple cable systems. For example, Hathway, Siti Cable, In TV are MSOs who operate either directly or via small cablewallahs. When cable TV was first introduced in India, small entrepreneurs set up their private cable companies, providing anywhere between seven to twenty channels to their local neighborhoods. They put up their own cable dish to down-link the broadcast signals from the satellite. Up until 1997, this was the only way one could access cable television; but this changed with the entry of the Multi Service Operators, who used better technology to provide clearer pictures, better sound and up to a 100 channels.

The broadcaster up-links the signal to their channel via satellite. The MSO down-links this signal, using a control room or a rear end. Inside the control room would be a set of RF signal modulators. Scientific Atalanta is an industry standard in India that provides control room equipment to various MSOs. The MSOs, which started off with analog technology to transmit their signals, are now moving to digital cable, delivering cable television as digital data instead of an analog frequency.

Because many MSOs continue to use analog transmission for low-numbered channels, and digital transmission for higher channels, a typical digital cable box is also able to convert traditional analog cable signals. Despite the advance of cable-ready television sets, most users need a cable box to receive digital channels. However, customers who do not subscribe to any digital channels can go without; MSOs provide "basic cable" service within the analog range, avoiding the need for distributing a box. However, advanced carrier services such as pay per view and video on demand will require a box.

Digital television allows for a higher quality and quantity of cable TV signals. Digital transmission is compressed and allows a much greater capacity than analog signals it almost completely eliminates interference. Digital converters have the same purpose as analog ones but are able to receive digital cable signals. With more data than analog in the same bandwidth, the system delivers superior picture and sound quality.

The MSO further re-transmits the RF signal from to the cablewallah, via coaxial optical cables or simply known as COAX that in turn boosts this signal using amplifiers and provide it to various homes using a common type of optical cable called RG6. The term RG was initially used by the US Military as an abbreviation for Radio Guide, but the term is now obsolete. RG6, in common practice, refers to coaxial cables with an 18 AWG center conductor and 75 ohm characteristic impedance. It typically has a copper-coated steel center conductor and a combination aluminum foil/aluminum braid shield. They are usually fitted with F connector style, in each end.

Once the signal reaches a cablewallah, the responsibility of the MSO ends, and it is up to the Cable Operator to maintain and distribute cable television from there onwards. Once the signal reaches the consumer's home, it is processed by a television converter box, popularly known as a set top box. A set top box is an electronic tunning device that transposes or converts any of the available channels from a cable television service to an analog RF signal on a single channel. The device enables televisions which are not cable ready to receive cable channels.

Modern set top boxes have a descrambling ability. The past three years have seen the entry of Direct to Home Pay TV operators, such as Tata Sky or Dish TV in the market, taking the technology to a new levels of sophistication, where the customers use a small cable dish to down-link the broadcasters signals which are processed with a set top box. In case of premium television, or paid channels, the broadcaster up-links an encrypted or a scrambled signal. When the signal reaches the home of the end user, it is reprocessed using a set top box, thus descrambling it and making it available for viewing on Television. A descrambler must be used with a cable converter box to be able to unencrypt all the premium and pay-per-view channels of a cable television system.

Now, put on that television, forget the tech and get back to the latest IPL match!

With inputs from MSOs, Local Cable Operators and Wikipedia for definitions of terms.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-dark-fibre-files-cable-tv-technology-for-dummies

Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

pranesh — 2012-05-17T16:51:38Z

In this post Pranesh Prakash conducts a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which deals with the stuff that enables 'Digital Rights/Restrictions Management', i.e., Technological Protection Measures. He notes that while the provision avoids some mistakes of the American law, it still poses grave problems to consumers, and that there are many uncertainties in it still.

Technological Protection Measures are sought to be introduced in India via the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. This should be quite alarming for consumers for reasons that will be explained in a separate blog post on TPMs that will follow shortly.

In this post, I will restrict myself to a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Bill, which talks of "protection of technological measures". (Section 65B, which talks of Right Management Information will, similarly, be tackled in a later blog post.)

First off, this provision is quite unnecessary. There has been no public demand in India for TPMs to be introduced, and the pressure has come mostly from the United States in the form of the annual "Special 301" report prepared by the United States Trade Representative with input coming (often copied verbatim) from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. India is not a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) which requires technological protection measures be safeguarded by law. That provision, interestingly, was pushed for by the United States in 1996 when even it did not give legal sanctity to TPMs via its copyright law (which was amended in 2000 by citing the need to comply with the WCT).

TPMs have been roundly criticised, have been shown to be harmful for consumers, creators, and publishers, and there is also evidence that TPMs do not really decrease copyright infringement (but instead, quite perversely through unintended consequences, end up increasing it). Why then would India wish to introduce it?

Leaving that question aside for now, what does the proposed law itself say?

65A. Protection of Technological Measures

    (1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

    (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:

        (a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:

          Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or

        (b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or

        (c) conducting any lawful investigation; or

        (d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or

        (e) operator; or [sic]

        (f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or

        (g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.

Implications: The Good Part

This provision clearly takes care of two of the major problems with the way TPMs have been implemented by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States:

In s.65A(1) it aligns the protection offered by TPMs to that offered by copyright law itself (since it has to be "applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act"). Thus, presumably, TPMs could not be used to restrict access, only to restrict copying, communication to the public, and that gamut of rights.
In s.65A(1) and 65A(2) it aligns the exceptions granted by copyright law with the exceptions to the TPM provision. Section 65A(1) states that the act of circumvention has to be done "with the intention of infringing ... rights", and s.52(1) clearly states that those exceptions cannot be regarded as infringement of copyright. And s.65A(2)(a) states that circumventing for "a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act" will be allowed.

A third important difference from the DMCA is that

It does not criminalise the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools (including code, devices, etc.). (More on this below.)

Implications: The Bad Part

This provision, despite the seeming fair-handed manner in which it has been drafted, still fails to maintain the balance that copyright seeks to promote:

TPM-placers (presumably, just copyright holders, because of point 1. above) have been given the ability to restrict the activities of consumers, but they have not been given any corresponding duties. Thus, copyright holders do not have to do anything to ensure that the Film & Telivision Institute of India professor who wishes to use a video clip from a Blu-Ray disc can actually do so. Or that the blind student who wishes to circumvent TPMs because she has no other way of making it work with her screen reader is actually enabled to take advantage of the leeway the law seeks to provide her through s.52(1)(a) (s.52(1)(zb) is another matter!). Thus, while there are many such exceptions that the law allows for, the technological locks themselves prevent the use of those exceptions. Another way of putting that would be to say:
The Bill presumes that every one has access to all circumvention technology. This is simply not true. In fact, Spanish law (in Article 161 of their law) expressly requires that copyright holders facilitate access to works protected by TPM to beneficiaries of limitations of copyright. Thus, copyright holders who employ TPMs should be required to:
- tell their customers how they can be contacted if the customer wishes to circumvent the TPM for a legitimate purpose
- upon being contacted, aid their customer in making use of their rights / the exceptions and limitations in copyright law
How seriously can you take a Bill that has been introduced in Parliament that includes a provision that states: "Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from operator; or" (as s.65A(2)(e), read in its entirety, does)?

Uncertainties

As mentioned above, the provisions are not all that clear regarding manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools. Thus, the proviso to s.65A(2)(a) deserves a closer reading. What is clear is that there are no penalties mentioned for manufacture or dissemination of TPMs, and that only those who circumvent are penalised in 65A(1), and not those who produce the circumvention devices. However:

On "shall maintain" and penalties

In the proviso to s.65B(2)(a), there is an imperative ("shall maintain") requiring "any person facilitating circumvention" to keep records. It is unclear what the implications of not maintaining such records are.

The obvious one is that the exemption contained in s.65(1)(a) will not apply if one were facilitated without the facilitator keeping records. Thus, under this interpretation, there is no independent legal (albeit penalty-less) obligation on facilitators. This interpretation runs into the problem that if this was the intention, then the drafters would have written "Provided that any person facilitating circumvention ... for such a purpose maintain/maintained a complete record ...". Instead, shall maintain is used, and an independent legal obligation seems, thus, to be implied. But can a proviso create an independent legal obligation? And is there any way a penalty could possibly be attached to violation of this proviso despite it not coming within 65A(1)?

On "facilitating" and remoteness

The next question is who all can be said to "facilitate", and how remote can the connection be? Is the coder who broke the circumvention a facilitator? The distributor/trafficker? The website which provided you the software? Or is it (as is more likely) a more direct "the friend who sat at your computer and installed the circumvention software" / "the technician who unlocked your DVD player for you while installing it in your house"?

While such a record-keeping requirement is observable by people those who very directly help you (the last two examples above), it would be more difficult to do so the further up you get on the chain of remoteness. Importantly, such record-keeping is absolutely not possible in decentralized distribution models (such as those employed by most free/open source software), and could seriously harm fair and legitimate circumvention.

More uncertainties

It is slightly unclear which exception the bypassing of Sony's dangerous "Rootkit" copy protection technology would fall under if I wish to get rid of it simply because it makes my computer vulnerable to malicious attacks (and not to exercise one of the exceptions under s.52(1)). Will such circumvention come under s.65A(2)(a)? Because it does not quite fall under any of the others, including s.65(2)(b) or (f).

On "purpose" as a criterion in 65A(2)(a)

A last point, which is somewhat of an aside is that 65A(2)(a) states:

Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act.

There's something curious about the wording, since the Copyright Act generally does not prohibit any acts based on purposes (i.e., the prohibitions by ss.14 r/w s.51 are not based on why someone reproduces, etc., but on the act of reproduction). In fact, it allows acts based on purposes (via s.52(1)). The correct way of reading 65A(2)(a) might then be:

Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose expressly allowed by this Act.

But that might make it slightly redundant as s.65A(1) covers that by having the requirement of the circumvention being done "with the intention of infringing such right" (since the s.52(1) exceptions are clearly stated as not being infringements of the rights granted under the Act).

Conclusion

It would be interesting to note how leading copyright lawyers understand this provision, and we will be tracking such opinions. But it is clear that TPMs, as a private, non-human enforcement of copyright law, are harmful and that we should not introduce them in India. And we should be especially wary of doing so without introducing additional safeguards, such as duties on copyright holder to aid access to TPM'ed works for legitimate purposes, and remove burdensome record-keeping provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment

Super Cassettes v. MySpace

ujwala — 2012-10-31T10:27:36Z

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

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

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

The Facts

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

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

The Defence

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

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

Outcomes

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

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

Analysis

Accounting for the Medium of Communication

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

And What of Free Speech?

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

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

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

Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of CIS Comments to DIPP’s Discussion Paper on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms

sinha — 2016-04-26T12:07:30Z

This blog post summarises CIS’ responses to DIPP’s Discussion Paper on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms. The response made specific recommendations regarding adequacy of Indian law to determine SEP litigation, remedies for FRAND assured SEPs, FRAND royalty rates, SSO’s policies, parties’ non-disclosure agreements and transparency, and essentiality of SEPs and their declassification.

On April 22nd, 2016, CIS filed a comment with the Department for Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), regarding Standard Essential Patents(SEPs) in India and their availability on FRAND terms. A TL;DR version of the comment follows.

Whether IPR and antitrust legislations should be amended

CIS submitted that no amendments to either the Patents Act, 1970 or the Competition Act, 2005 may be preferred. The changes that need to be brought forth are the adoption of a balanced National IPR Policy, and a National Competition Policy - both of which have been in the works for a while. Further, we urge the government to not enter into FTAs like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

IPR Policies of SSOs, and prescribing Guidelines for their functioning

CIS recommended that, first, Indian SSOs adopt an IPR Policy factoring in “India specific requirements”; second, on TSDSI’s IPR Policy (and DOSTI, GIFSI), certain changes be made to the policy to a) require the members to refrain from seeking injunctive relief b) delete the condition where FRAND negotiations may be subject to a condition of reciprocity; (c) to identify in detail the procedure to be followed in case of patent ‘holdups’ and patent ‘holdouts’; (d) to identify in detail the procedure to be followed in case of refusal to license by TSDSI members, and, nonmembers, both; and, (e) to include a detailed process on the declassification of a standard or technical specification. Further, SSOs may consider recommending the use of royalty-free licenses, in tune with the W3C and Open Mobile Alliance.

The government should prescribe Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs (incorporating the suggestions above), in view of increasing complexity of SEP litigation, and potential abuse of FRAND process. The Model Guidelines may additionally cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.

Royalty Rates

The government should also intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms, in light of severe inadequacies in the SSOs’ IPR policies. CIS suggested that the government should initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Also, payment of royalties on SEPs should be capped by fixing a limit by the DIPP.

Further, royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component.

Non-Disclosure Agreements and Transparency

On the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in SEP/FRAND litigation, CIS submitted that . pending a final determination by the CCI (and subsequent appeals) it would be premature to make an absolute claim on whether the use of NDAs results in an abuse of dominant position in all instances.

On making the practices of cross-licensing and patent pooling transparent, CIS strongly urged the DIPP to strictly enforce the compliance of Form 27s by patentees. Availability of Form 27s will critically enable willing licensees to access patent working information in a timely manner. The Form 27 template may be modified to include more details, including patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.

Further, guidelines may be drawn up on whether it was discriminatory to charge no royalties (whether on the SSPPU or on the whole device) for a patent holder in a cross licensing arrangement with another, when it charges royalty on the selling price of the device from a non cross-licensor.

Remedies for FRAND- assured SEPs

CIS recommended that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation, because a) injunctions may deter willing licensees from agreeing to the FRAND commitment, and also harm them b) accurately proving irreparable damage is difficult to establish in the Indian context for smartphone manufacturers c) there exists ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence to determine the conduct of an unwilling licensee, inter alia.

In CIS’ opinion, there is no need for an independent expert body to determine FRAND terms for SEPs and devising the methodology for such a purpose. The existing legal and regulatory framework is reasonably equipped to determine FRAND terms. Analytical frameworks may be studied in American jurisprudence to determine reasonable royalty rates, and patent damages.

Essentiality of SEPs and their declassification

To determine whether a patent declared as SEP is actually an Essential Patent, CIS submits that various methodologies have been used by studies to analyse the same. Goodman and Myers led a study on the subject in 2005; and additionally, laboratory tests and expert opinions can be taken into account to determine the essentiality.

Lastly, CIS suggested that Indian SSOs maintain a publicly accessible database of SEPs found to be invalid or non-essential in India. Such a record will assist the process of declassifying SEPs timely.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms

Sub$-100 Phones: Browser Compatibility Tests

rohini — 2017-02-16T16:47:02Z

This post documents the results of browser compatibility tests conducted on six out of eight specimen mobile phones being studied under the Pervasive Technologies project. These phones are Internet-enabled and cost the equivalent of USD 100 or less in India. Rohini Lakshané and CIS volunteer Dhananjay Balan carried out the tests. Intern Shreshth Wadhwa provided assistance.

Names and descriptions of mobile phones under study: Annexure 1
How the phones under study were chosen: Section 3.2: Criteria for choosing the mobile phones

Research Question:

What technical standards are browsers pre-installed in the eight test phones compatible with?

This question partially answers research question #2 in Methodology: Patent Landscaping in the Indian Mobile Device Market, that is, what patents pertain to [technical] capabilities commonly found in networked mobile devices sold in India for USD 100 or less?

Method:

We conducted tests on all browsers pre-installed, that is, installed by the manufacturer, on six mobile phones to understand their extent of compliance with technical standards for the web. All browsers were tuned to their default settings and no plugins or extensions were installed in them. The tests could not be run on two phones for reasons stated in "Limitations".

For Android v4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) and higher versions, we set up a local host and automated all the tests by using a script. The local host was set up to expose sample HTTP endpoints. We tested all browsers through this server.

A Shell script was used to acquire screenshots of the results of the tests:
#!/bin/bash

adb shell screencap -p $1
adb pull $1

We collected screenshots of devices with Android versions below v4.0 by capturing the framebuffer since the shell command was introduced in v4.0.

Script: Github - https://gist.github.com/dbalan/e58f51b713bfd6d711fd02061e27ca90 or Download as .zip.

Android version numbers, where applicable, can be found in the “User Agent” row of the test results. We took photos of the screens for the rest of the devices.

Standards and capabilities tested:

Browser Network Support

HTTP/1.1
HTTP/2
SSL

Acid Tests

Acid tests 1, 2, and 3 (http://www.acidtests.org) were run on all phones.

Acid 1 tests for compliance to the CSS 1.0 standard; Acid 2 for HTML 4, CSS 2.1, PNG, and data URLs. Acid 3 for SVG, HTML, SMIL, Unicode, DOM, ECMAScript (Javascript), and CSS 3, among other parameters. Here is the full list of specifications tested by Acid 3: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/x

Image Formats

JPEG
GIF
PNG

Results

View as .ods; View as .xls

Reading the results:

User-agent string

Example 1: Micromax Canvas Engage A091
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; Micromax A091 Build/A091) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.114 Mobile Safari/537.36

Mozilla/5.0: Mozilla Firefox browser, version number
This is a user-agent token.

Linux: Linux kernel

Android 4.4.2: Operating system, version number

Micromax A091: Device ID

Build/A091: Build number.

This is a customised Android build by Micromax. (Build numbers of stock Android 4.4.2 are KOT49H and KVT49L).

AppleWebKit/537.36: WebKit, version number. WebKit by Apple is a component of a layout engine that renders web pages in browsers. It is based on KHTML.KHTML: HTML layout engine developed by KDE. Licensed LGPL.

like Gecko: A browser that behaves like a Gecko browser

Chrome/34.0.1847.114: Chrome for Android browser, version number

Mobile: Either mobile browser or mobile device, or both

Safari/537.36: Apple Safari browser, version number

Example 2: Opal Cyher-Shot NX900
User-agent: Dorado WAP-Browser/1.0.0/powerplay/2

Dorado WAP-Browser/1.0.0: User agent key, version

This is a WAP browser for mobile phones based on a Java engine.

Observations:

Browsers pre-installed on phones of Indian brands comply with all technical standards and capabilities tested for. All of these phones -- Intex, Lava and Micromax -- also run on the Android operating system. In the case of failed tests, the results are the same or similar for most mobile phones. For example, Opera Mini 7.5 on Intex Aqua N15 and on Micromax Canvas Engage A091 scored 97/100 in the Acid3 test. This is in line with the results released by Acid for Opera Mini 7.5 and also by the Browserscope project for profiling web browsers.

Awang, Yestel and Opal are brands from China or Hong Kong. The only pre-installed browser on Awang A808, an Android v2.3 (Gingerbread) phone, also cleared all tests but one. It scored 95/100 in the acid3 test, which is the case for the Firefox browser on most Gingerbread phones. The browsers on non-Android phones Yestel and Opal failed the tests for Acid1, Acid2, Acid3 and HTTP2, which indicates that while these phones are technically Internet-enabled, their users do not enjoy many of the benefits of the modern web.

Screenshots or photos of results:

View photos and screenshots
The name of the file is in the format: <name of browser>_<name of format/ acid test with number>.<file extension>
In the case of default browsers, <name of browser> appears as “android”.

Limitations:

Eight phones were under study. However, one of the phones (HiBro) did not contain a pre-installed browser. The only way to access the Internet on this phone was through pre-installed apps such as Facebook.

The operating system of Kechaoda K16, which was Java-based, did not yield to the script used for running the tests. It had one pre-installed WAP browser. Both these phones were excluded from the tests.

Screenshots could not be obtained for the results of tests of two phones, Opal Cyher-Shot NX900 and Yestel Q5S+. We took photos of their screens instead.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-phones-browser-compatibility-tests

Statement of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR

praskrishna — 2011-08-04T04:41:12Z

The twenty-second session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from June 15 to June 24, 2011. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending the conference. CIS delivered its statement, on the Broadcast Treaty, and made it available in print form as well.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to associate itself with the comprehensive statement made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We are one of the signatories of the joint statement, which EFF referred to, of the many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing an intellectual property rights based Broadcasting Treaty.

We believe that the protection that may be afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been under discussion for more than a decade without any progress is, as the WIPO Chair observed in the conclusion to the informal summary prepared after the 16th SCCR (SCCR/17/1/inf), an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no avail". Without prejudice to that position, we would like to make a few points on the content of the treaty as well.

There has been talk of ensuring a technology-neutral approach. While a technology-neutral approach is useful since technology keeps changing, we believe that that necessarily means the differences between different technologies should be recognized. The capital costs and investments of traditional broadcasters, which are—as has been highlighted in the many statements here today—the basis on which broadcasters' rights are demanded, are not in the least comparable with the capital costs and investments of webcasting.

These differences have not come out adequately in the various regional seminars that WIPO helped organize, since those were mostly with traditional broadcasters and did not cover webcasters.

"Communication to the public", while that is a technologically neutral formulation, is an element of copyright, and is not the same of broadcast rights, which is a related right.

Any departure from a signal-based approach would require the assent of the WIPO General Assembly, which has in 2007 specifically requested for signal-based approach for the treaty.

Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda, which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying content of the transmission.

In this regard, we strongly support the delegations of South Africa and India, in their strong pronunciation of public interests while looking at such a treaty. We further support the delegation of Canada, for strongly emphasizing the need to allow countries the flexibility to opt-out of the provisions of the treaty for certain forms of broadcasting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement

Statement of CIS on the Work of the Committee in the 21st SCCR

nirmita — 2014-05-29T06:57:29Z

The twenty-first session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights was held in Geneva from 8 to 12 November 2010. Nirmita Narasimhan attended the conference and represented the Centre for Internet and Society.

The Centre for Internet and Society is pleased to note the collective intent on the part of member states to find a solution to the lack of accessible reading materials for persons with print disabilities around the world, as evidenced by the number of proposals which have been put forward since the past SCCR. It is clear that member states have been applying their minds to this problem and have presented us with several possible options, which they believe would adequately address this issue. We would however like to take this opportunity to remind them, that disability groups, from both developed and developing countries, who have been grappling with this issue for decades, have been unitedly stressing the urgent need for a legally binding international instrument as the only effective solution to achieve results at a global level.

I would like to very quickly put forward a few thoughts for the consideration of this committee:

We believe, that there should be an international treaty harmonising exceptions and limitations for access to reading materials for persons with print disabilities, and that achieving this should be the first priority for work in this committee
Limitations and exceptions are important for promoting access to knowledge, encouraging creativity and furthering the overall development of humankind and hence, should be the subject matter of serious discussions at WIPO; WIPO should play an important role in the development of international copyright law to facilitate greater access to knowledge and information, especially in the context of digital technologies

Limitations and exceptions on all issues which further the development Agenda of WIPO, including exceptions for the print disabled, education, libraries and other issues, must be discussed amongst member states without delay in the forthcoming meetings of this committee
We feel that there may be some merit in reserving separate sessions for discussing each issue, since this would facilitate more focused and comprehensive deliberations in an expeditious manner

Hence, we would like to urge member states to begin work on all these issues, ordering them on the basis of their maturity, with a view to achieving concrete outcomes, which should be informed by the collective wisdom of stakeholders affected by these instruments as to what are the ground realities prevailing in their countries.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-cis-statement

Statement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR

pranesh — 2011-11-30T06:55:43Z

The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.

We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.

Broadcasters Already Protected Online

Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.

Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.

The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.

Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.

Support Countries' Concerns

We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement

Software Freedom Day Inter-college Contest

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:24:09Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in partnership with Mahiti Infotech is co-organising the Software Freedom Day at Gandhi Statue, MG Road, Bangalore on 18 September 2010.

Download the poster for the event
Download the information about the competition

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-freedom-day

Shape of IPRs and Agriculture post the WTO Nairobi Ministerial

sinha — 2016-05-05T07:11:16Z

CIS is running a series of meetups focused on intellectual property to bring folks interested in IP law to discuss developments in access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc. At the first meet-up in February, Prof. Biswajit Dhar delivered a short talk on intellectual property rights and agriculture in a post-Nairobi Ministerial world. This post is a summary of his talk.

Extension of abeyance of Non- violation complaints

At the Nairobi Ministerial, members agreed to extend the non-applicability of non-violation complaints for two years. There are two kinds of disputes which can be initiated at the WTO -first, when the partner country does not fulfill a commitment and such a non-implementation is injures the member country, leading to either nullification or impairment. Second, a country may deem itself to be injured even though the partner country has fulfilled its obligations. For instance, despite India's compulsory license grants complying with TRIPS, the US initiated a dispute against India.

Need for greater negotiating muscle and coalition building at multilateral fora

The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) came into force in 1993, followed by the TRIPS agreement in 1995. India became a member of the CBD and gained sovereign rights over its diversity. Before CBD, inventions related to diversity were protected by private rights. The turmeric case, and increasing bio-piracy led to introduction of requirement of disclosing the source. India proposed that along with other details, the source of the biological material should be mandatorily disclosed, including any associated traditional knowledge. Subsequent benefits arising out of use of biological resources had to be shared with the country- it was important to acknowledge that the community had nurtured these resources. The coalition in favour of the disclosure requirement was an interesting one because it was between India, Brazil, sometimes South Africa, Andean countries and Pakistan. This was pushed for in WIPO where the need for a treaty was advocated. The consensus around the disclosure requirement was an example of developing countries forming coalitions to make their interests more pronounced.

Further, greater the evidence, better is a country’s case in negotiations. After the Turmeric case, India realised that it needs written and not oral evidence to produce in the US Courts. That realisation led to the creation of a documentation project for traditional knowledge(Traditional Knowledge Library Database). Since the last decade, India has been sharing this database with patent officers. Since 2009, TKDL has also contested patents in various jurisdictions. At the EPO, India contested 94 patents, while in Canada the number is 25. Although there has been some success in US but major success has been in EU only. However, there is a shortage of manpower to work on the challenges, and as a consequence the efforts have largely failed to push the process of the law. Mounting these challenges also proves to be be exorbitantly expensive. There are indeed very few countries which have effectively done this without succumbing to international political pressure- India is one of them. It is possible to use this democratic space wisely to push back the dominant powers.

Trade is imminent and there will be trade. However, if we do not deal with trade effectively, it will spell doom for us. The Transpacific Partnership(TPP) and Nairobi ministerial should serve as a warning for us. The prevalent fear has been that countries in favour of TPP will be multilateralised. India's steps indicate a roll back of its role at the WTO. Once it moves out of the WTO framework and the Doha agenda fails, TPP signatories will begin to exert pressure on WTO. Granted that there is very little window to move forward, nevertheless, India should try using its influence to fight at the WTO with all resources available. WTO has limitations but such organizations are the only bet we have against multilateral organizations. Currently, India is allowing these organizations to be shaped in an undesirable manner. We have not used the WTO truly well enough, and neither have we been able to influence ongoing negotiations. There is, therefore, a need to rethink our strategy. It is time to step up and engage with lawmakers instead of only engaging with bureaucrats.

Negotiating teams at these multilateral fora are of utmost importance, because of their unique position to influence the law making process at the top-down level. In the long term, they are also a cost saving measure (compared to mounting opposition to patents, etc). Unfortunately, India has kept silent as it watches US and its allies taking over ASEAN. Through TPP, rules are changing and the US-led alliance is taking over countries beyond Pacific Rim, by moving into ASEAN. India is in an isolated position right now and needs a group of its own to collaborate and work as a formidable force against US.

India should have seized the opportunity to group with African nations in the India-Africa forum to consolidate its position. Similarly, Latin countries may also be pursued. These regions are important since India's support at the WTO has been on a sharp decline.

Agriculture

India is also under pressure to remove agricultural subsidies. The subsidy regime was crafted by the EU and US to enable them to exempt their subsidies in an exempt list (green box). Further, US cleverly protected its own export credits so that its own subsidies became exempt. In this manner, even subsidies pertaining to export competition are not totally eliminated. However, other countries like India have raised an issue that in these countries, export subsidy is but one part of total subsidies. The latter has come down and this is problematic because countries like India simply must have potential to safeguard against hunger. The public distribution system is essential for this. India has a system of Minimum Support Price(MSP) and input subsidy. On the other hand, US provides direct income support, arguing that markets should be as close to their pristine form as possible. And input subsidy and MSP do not reconcile with this. According to them, income transfers are better because that does not manipulate prices.

In US and EU, the irony is that, they have farm policies. US has had a farm bill every 4 years since 1933, and EU has a common agricultural policy. India does not have any such policy. The US and EU inform their producers their about expected subsidies for the next 4 years, enabling the producers to plan in advance. In this case, income transfer can work. Therefore, the farmers can take higher risks and can manipulate prices. Their farm rate price is well below the economic cost and international price since they have protection because of the income transfer. The international price is supposed to be efficient (in almost 3 decades, international prices have been same). Since their prices are below international prices, they can dump in the international market. On the other hand, nobody else can enter the US market. Ironically, this income support, which affects international trade so unfairly, is kept out of the scope of WTO deliberations - no questions asked. Further, while the US Farm Bill expenditure has gone up, in contrast, India has a limit on subsidy. Food subsidy is counted in the 10% limit prescribed by the WTO.

The situation is can be summarised as, thus: US's activities eventually escape the WTO, while Indian programmes fall within the scope, more than the usual. Before the Food Security Act, the below poverty line population were the only beneficiaries. And now, the Act benefits two-thirds of the population. As a result, quantum of subsidized food has gone up. If the government decides to give income transfers (instead of subsidies), in order for it to be successful, the tiller has to be the owner of the land, which is problematic in India. Although people want to follow direct benefit transfer for agriculture as well, the question remains that how many workers will actually benefit from it.

It is evident that agriculture is suffering- Mint recently reported on how India is becoming an agro importer. Sugar output has suffered. India might import sugar next year along with pulses, wheat. Productivity is going down. This is will make way for support for genetically modified crops-- which is again what the US wants. If the WTO gets populated by TPP signatories, India cannot continue with providing subsidies because TPP eliminates agricultural subsidies. The only relevant factors are market entry and tariff. This could be agriculture’s deathbed.

Negotiations on agricultural issues have not been effective because of divisions within it. Fragmentations have caused a lack of unity - even a bare common minimum position does not exist. Further, US and allies have used diversionary tactics such as repeatedly asking for evidence, not bringing anything concrete to the table, etc. When the process is frustrated frequently, activist movements also die down.

Loss of bargaining power has led to fatigue within various activist groups in the country. On the other hand, corporations continue prospering. India had put up a strong fight for TRIPS flexibilities, but today elements like TPP are destroying balanced regimes across the world.

Thanks to our intern Aniruddha Majumdar for his assistance on this post.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/shape-of-ip-and-agriculture-post-the-wto-nairobi-ministerial

Seventh Global Intellectual Property Convention

praskrishna — 2015-02-12T16:59:01Z

The Seventh Global IP Convention took place in Mumbai from January 15 to 17, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended the event.

Agenda

Time	Detail
08.00 09.00	Registration
09.00 10.30	Inaugural Session (Majestic I & II)
10.30 11.00	Coffee Break and Networking Session
11.00 12.30	Plenary Session I: Power of IP: Gateway to Growth (Majestic I & II)
12.30 13.30	Lunch Break & Networking Session
13.30 15.30	Technical Session: I, II & III
15.30 16.00	Coffee Break and Networking Session
16.00 18.00	Technical Session: IV, V & VI

For more info on the event, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/seventh-global-ip-convention

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:59:59Z

A seminar on Software Patents and Commons is being held on 1 September, 2010 in Delhi. It is jointly organised by CIS, Knowledge of Commons and the Software Freedom Law Centre. The event is sponsored by Red Hat. Pranesh Prakesh will speak on Arguments against Software Patents in India.

For the full event details and the agenda, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-patents-commons

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-10-23T14:22:15Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos

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