The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 81 to 95.
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:44:21ZFileTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 23, 2012)</li>
<li>(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:35:43ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:34:22ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:08ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:33:29ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:37ZFileIndia's Opening Statement on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi
<b>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.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty. We are even open to working on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR, waiting for the next General Assembly.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-07-23T15:24:26ZBlog EntryCIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired
<b>This was the statement read out by Pranesh Prakash at the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee for Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva, on Friday, July 20, 2012.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chairman.<br />
</p>
<p>I would like to associate CIS with the statements made by the WBU, eIFL, IFLA, KEI, ISOC, and CLA.</p>
<p>We NGOs been making statements at SCCR on this the topic of a treaty for the reading-disabled since 2009 now.</p>
<p>In this room there are a number of organizations that work with and for persons with disabilities which come here to Geneva, SCCR after SCCR. They do not come here to watch the enactment of an elaborate ritual, but to seek solutions for the very real knowledge drought that is being faced by the reading-disabled everywhere, and particularly in developing countries.</p>
<p>The way work on this treaty — or rather this binding-or-non-binding international instrument — has been stalled by some member states is a matter of shame. In India our Parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities, and those who are working for them, a strong yet simply-worded right to have equal access to copyrighted works as sighted persons.</p>
<p>An instrument that lays down detailed guidelines on rules and procedures to be followed by authorized entities will not work. An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work.<br />
</p>
<p>Importantly, an instrument that ignores realities of the world: that the vast majority of persons with visual impairment live in developing countries just will not work.</p>
<p>I implore the delegations here to keep up the constructive spirit I have seen most of them display in the past two days, and ensure that the 2012 General Assembly convenes a Diplomatic Conference on this topic.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-07-22T12:01:28ZBlog EntryThe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Injunctions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/work-of-art-in-age-of-mechanical-injunctions
<b>The same ‘Ashok Kumar,' now restrained from infringing the copyright of the film, ‘3,' helped its signature song, ‘ Kolaveri,' go viral by downloading and copying it without any restraints, writes Lawrence Liang in this Op-ed published in the Hindu on May 23, 2012.</b>
<p>The internet has been abuzz with news of all major Internet Service Providers (ISP) in India blocking popular websites like Piratebay, Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin pursuant to a Madras High Court order issued in response to a petition by the makers of the Tamil movie, 3. For those who don't know, this is the film which features the song, “Kolaveri,” whose viral journey around the world was celebrated by virtually everyone, including the film-makers.</p>
<p>There are a number of unanswered questions about the validity of this, including whether the Department of Telecom was entitled to ask for sites to be blocked on the basis of the order and how the ISPs chose these particular websites since the order itself does not mention any particular website. This is not to mention the larger question of how the last 10 years have seen the dubious rise of John Doe orders as a pre-emptive measure against copyright infringement.</p>
<p>For those unfamiliar with John Doe orders, they are ex parte injunctions ordered against unknown persons.</p>
<p>Just to put this in context, ex parte injunctions are not the easiest things to obtain since they are based on the denial of another person's right to be heard. So even for cases of violence against women, getting an ex parte restraining order is not easy. In contrast, in the last decade we have seen the ease with which one can obtain these orders for copyright infringement cases.</p>
<h3>High Court order</h3>
<p>A number of legal innovations in the realm of injunctions have been developed to tackle the problem of anonymity in this domain. The three specific tools that have been used include</p>
<p>Ex parte injunctions (injunctions that are granted even without hearing the other party).</p>
<p>John Doe Orders (issued against anonymous offenders; e.g. Mirabhai Films got a John Doe Order against all cable operators before the release of “Monsoon Wedding”).</p>
<p>Anton Piller Orders (Search and seizure orders) including breaking down doors of shops which are closed.</p>
<p>But for the moment I want to focus on the fascinating High Court order itself and its incarnation of an unknown Indian person, Ashok Kumar, as well as the spectral fear of the copy.</p>
<p>The order names 20 respondents. Of these, the first 15 include all the major ISPs (BSNL, MTNL, Airtel, Tata, Reliance, etc) and respondents Nos.16 to 20 are Ashok Kumar, unknown person.</p>
<p>I am not sure why there are four Ashok Kumars when one would have done the trick. Is it a bug in the matrix? Are Nos.17 to 20 merely the pirated versions of respondent no.16? Could it be a viral infection from within the film and its well known song, which also has a habit of repeating itself (“Why this kolaveri kolaveri kolaveri kolaveri di?”).</p>
<p>The order basically says that M/s Fifteen Majors ISPs and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar should not infringe the copyright of the film “3.”</p>
<p>It is ordered that</p>
<p><em>the respondents/defendants herein, and other unknown persons by themselves, their partners/proprietor, heirs, representatives, successors in business, assigns, distributors, agents or anyone claiming through them be and are hereby restrained by order of interim injunction until further orders of this court from, in any manner infringing the applicants copyright in the cinematographic films/motion picture “3” by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing camcording or communication or allowing others to communicate to making available or distributing or duplicating or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing in or in any manner communication in any manner without a proper license form the applicant or in any manner that would violate/infringe the applicants copyright in the said cinematograph film “3” through different mediums including CD, DVD, Blu-Ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, Direct to home services, internet services, multimedia messaging services, pen drives, hard drives, tapes, conditional access systems or in any other like manner whatsoever</em></p>
<p>So in addition to the unknown Ashok Kumar, we have the addition of other unknown persons (Kishore, Rajesh, Anup evam Indrajit?), their heirs, agents, representatives, etc of these unknown persons. This is followed by a list of prohibited acts (copying, uploading, downloading) through a set of prohibited objects (hard drives, pen drives, DVDs, etc).</p>
<p>This straightforward assault on the everyday passion that people invest in cinema and music is intriguing if not all that surprising in the history of copyright infringement.</p>
<h3>Microsoft case</h3>
<p>Companies have regularly benefited from the passionate investment of viewers, spectators and users in their goods before taking out their copyright sledge hammer to control the indisciplined passions of the same users and viewers. Consider for instance the fact that Microsoft did not enforce their copyright over illegal copies of their Operating System or products such as Microsoft Office for years (despite being one of the “best” software companies in the world). They only started enforcing their copyright when there was enough of a mass market that had been created and a lock-in secured for their goods. Learning a software includes a huge investment of time and effort on the part of users and, unlike toothpaste, cannot be changed overnight.<br /><br />In the same way “kolaveri” became what it is because of M/s Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar copying, communicating, uploading, downloading, modifying and distributing over the internet, through CDs, hard drives and pen drives, the song and all its hundred variations. This wasn't just a catchy song going viral but an attitude going global. Fan clubs in South India have been marked by the excess investment that they make in stars and in films, an excess that moves between the monetary economy of box office hits and profits on the one hand and the libidinal economy of love, passion and enthusiasm on the other.</p>
<p>For owners of copyright, an ideal world would be one where you could control one through the control of the other. So one benefits from all the passion of fans and enthusiasts even as one hopes that this will convert into mass hysteria at the box office. But there is that little thing about having one's cake and eating it too.</p>
<p>The copy which promised abundance but then threatens to eat into the film-makers profits seems to parallel the larger movement of the word copy, whose etymological roots in copia (“plenty”) moves in English from an original sense of “abundance” to the more recent sense of derivativeness. It passes, thereby, from a sense of plenty to a sense of scarcity.</p>
<p>Apart from the questionable logic of the film-makers turning fans and enthusiasts against their own film, what we probably need to do for the future is to think of how the investment of “excessive energy” allows us to make claims of ownership and limit the hackneyed argument of a film being the private property of the film-maker. This is a domain which necessarily takes us away from the usual focus either on the language of rights or even the language of openness and what we need is a Political language of Passion and Enthusiasm which can supplement the existing languages of denial and access. The excessive response of the film-makers in securing this order and in the blocking of the websites is plainly disrespectful of the excess that they thrived on just a few months ago.</p>
<p>The absolute ignorance and arrogance of the film-makers in trying to secure a ban on these websites shows their blindness to the way that the internet works. Imagine a Facebook without faces, a YouTube without uploaders, and Twitter without tweeters. It is said that Kafka came across a reference to a cinema for the blind in Prague, and he was intrigued by it and came to believe that all cinemas should be called The Cinema of the Blind, because their flickering images blind people to reality. What we have with the Ashok Kumar order is perhaps the inauguration of the cinema of visionless film-makers because their flickering profits blind them to reality.</p>
<p>(Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher based at Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. He can be contacted at lawrence@altlawforum.org)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3446658.ece?css=print">Click</a> to read the original in the Hindu.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/work-of-art-in-age-of-mechanical-injunctions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/work-of-art-in-age-of-mechanical-injunctions</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-15T13:56:16ZBlog Entryಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ
https://cis-india.org/a2k/digital-restrictions-management
<b>ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶ ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಾನದ ಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ರಿಚರ್ಡ್ ಸ್ಟಾಲ್ಮನ್ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ (ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೈಟ್ಸ್ ಮ್ಯಾನೇಜ್ಮೆಂಟ್) ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು `ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೆಸ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ಷನ್ ಮ್ಯಾನೇಜ್ಮೆಂಟ್` ಎಂದು ಬಿಡಿಸಿಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯಲ್ಲ. ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ. ಈ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ತಂತ್ರ ಬಳಕೆದಾರನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://prajavani.net/include/story.php?news=562&section=51&menuid=15">The article was published in Prajavani on June 9, 2012</a></p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿ ರೈಟ್ ಹೊಂದಿರುವವನಿಗೆ ಬಳಕೆದಾರನ ಹಾರ್ಡ್ವೇರ್, ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡುವ, ಆಲಿಸುವ ಮತ್ತು ಓದುವ ವಸ್ತು-ವಿಷಯದ ಮೇಲೆಯೂ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಹೇರುವ ಅನೈತಿಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಬಿಡುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಸ್ಟಾಲ್ಮನ್ ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ.</p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ನ ಮಾಲೀಕರು ಈ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ತಂತ್ರ ತಮ್ಮ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯನ್ನು ತಡೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರಾದರೂ ಇದು ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅನೇಕ ದೇಶಗಳ ಉದಾಹರಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಬಳಕೆದಾರನ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಜ್ಞಾನದ ಬಾಗಿಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದೇ ನಿಜ.</p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ವಯ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲೇ ಇರದ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ನ ಮಾಲೀಕರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿಬಿಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಂಗವಿಕಲರು ತಮಗೆ ಓದಲು ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗುವ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಪುಸ್ತಕವನ್ನು ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು, ಸಂಶೋಧಕರು ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಅಥವಾ ಈ ಬಗೆಯ ಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಒಂದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಗೆ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು, ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಸಿನಿಮಾ, ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಬಳಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಉಳಿಸಿ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು (ಬ್ಯಾಕ್ಅಪ್) ಬೇಕಾದಂತೆ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು, ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ನಂಥ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನ ಗಳನ್ನು ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿತ ಉಪಯೋಗ ಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಭಿನ್ನ ಬಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸುವುದು, ಉದ್ದೇಶಿತ ವೇದಿಕೆಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಭಿನ್ನವಾದ ವೇದಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ಗಳಂಥ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ರಿವರ್ಸ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡುವಂಥ ಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅನುವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುತ್ತದೆ.</p>
<p>ಆದರೆ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿಯೇ ಇರುವ ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕೆಲಸಗಳಿಗೂ ತಡೆಯೊಡುತ್ತದೆ.2011ರ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹೊಸ ರೂಪ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ 1957ರ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯನ್ನು ತಡೆಯುವ ವಿಧಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದೆ.</p>
<p>ತನ್ನ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯನ್ನು ತಡೆಯುವು ದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುವ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಹ್ಯಾಕ್ ಮಾಡುವಂಥ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದವರಿಗೆ ಎರಡು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಕಾರಾಗೃಹ ವಾಸದಂಥ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯೂ ಹೊಸ ಕಾನೂನಿನಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಹಾಗೆಂದು ಈ ಕಾನೂನು ಬಹಳ ಋಣಾತ್ಮಕವಷ್ಟೇ ಆಗಿದೆ ಎನ್ನಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ಅತಿ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಧನಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಂಶಗಳಿವೆ. ಮೊದಲನೆಯದ್ದು ಸಾರ್ವತ್ರಿಕ ಲಭ್ಯತೆಯ ವಸ್ತು-ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಬಗೆಯ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಿಸಲು ಅವಕಾಶವಿಲ್ಲ. ಎರಡನೆಯದ್ದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಪರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ನಡೆಸಲಾಗುವ ಹ್ಯಾಕಿಂಗ್ ಅಪರಾಧವಲ್ಲ. ಮೂರನೆಯದ್ದು ಹೀಗೆ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಆವಿಷ್ಕರಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನು ತಡೆಯುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಒಂದು ವಿಡಿಯೋ/ಆಡಿಯೋ ಕಂಪೆನಿ ಒಂದು ಡಿವಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಕೇವಲ ಮೈಕ್ರೋಸಾಫ್ಟ್ ಮೀಡಿಯಾ ಪ್ಲೇಯರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಲು ಅಥವಾ ಆಲಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರುವಂತೆ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ ಲೀನಕ್ಸ್ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರು ಅದನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರುವಂತೆ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿ ಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಅಪರಾಧವಲ್ಲ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಆಡಿಯೋ ಪುಸ್ತಕವೊಂದನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಕಂಪೆನಿ ಅದನ್ನು ಅಂಧರು ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗದಂತೆ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಬಳಸಿದ್ದರೆ ಅಂಧರಿಗೆ ಅದನ್ನು ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಸ್ವರೂಪಕ್ಕೆ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬಳಸುವ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯವನ್ನು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಗೆಳೆಯನೊಬ್ಬನಿಂದ ಪಡೆದ ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಇರುವ ಡಿವಿಡಿಯಿಂದ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರೊಬ್ಬರು ತಮ್ಮ ತರಗತಿ ಅನುಕೂಲಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಕ್ಲಿಪ್ಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಿದರೂ ಅದು ಅಪರಾಧವಾಗು ವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞನೊಬ್ಬ ಅಂತರ ಜಾಲಸಂಪರ್ಕವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ ಆಡಬಲ್ಲ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಗೇಮ್ ಒಂದರಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಪೈವೇರ್ ಇದೆ ಅನುಮಾನಿಸಿ ಅದರ ಆಕರ ಸಂಕೇತಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದರೆ ಅದು ತಪ್ಪಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಈ ಸವಲತ್ತನ್ನು ಭದ್ರತಾ ಏಜನ್ಸಿಗಳೂ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿದೆ. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಪ್ರಖ್ಯಾತವಾಗಿರುವ ಒಂದು ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರನ್ನು ಹೋಲುವಂಥದ್ದೇ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನವನ್ನು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಉತ್ಸಾಹಿಯೊಬ್ಬ ರೂಪಿಸಿ ಜಾಗತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೊರಟರೂ ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಯಮ ತಪ್ಪು ಎನ್ನುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆತ ಅನುಕರಿ ಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನ ಬಳಸಿರುವ ಆಕರ ಸಂಕೇತಗಳು ಇರಬಾರದಷ್ಟೇ.</p>
<p>ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಮಸಿ ನುಂಗಿತು ಎಂಬಂತೆ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎರಡು ಋಣಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಂಶಗಳು ಅದರ ಧನಾತ್ಮಕತೆಗೆ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಮಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಹೇರಿಬಿಟ್ಟಿವೆ. ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನವನ್ನು ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಲು ಬೇಕಿರುವ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸುವ ಕಂಪೆನಿಗಳು ಅದನ್ನು ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂಬ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಿಯಮವಿದೆ.</p>
<p>ಅಂದರೆ ಇದೊಂದು ಬಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪರೋಕ್ಷವಾಗಿ ಈ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವುದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇರಿರುವ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣದಂತಿದೆ. ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಿದ್ದೇವೆಂಬ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾ ಹೋಗುವ ಕ್ರಿಯೆಯೇ ಮಾರಾಟ ಗಾರರ ಉತ್ಸಾಹಕ್ಕೆ ತಣ್ಣೀರೆರಚುತ್ತದೆ.</p>
<p>ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ `ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸುವ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು` ಚಲಾಯಿಸಲು ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುವ ಸವಲತ್ತು ಒದಗಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಮಾಲೀಕರನ್ನು ಬಾಧ್ಯಸ್ಥರನ್ನಾಗಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಂದರೆ ಬಳಕೆದಾರನಿಗೆ ಹಕ್ಕಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ಚಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅವಕಾಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಖಾತರಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಇದೆ.</p>
<p>ಲೇಖಕರು ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ಅಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಾಹಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು</p>
<hr />
<p>English translation below:</p>
<h2>Digital Restrictions Management</h2>
<p>As Richard Stallman the founder of the Free Software movement puts it the correct expansion of the acronym DRM is Digital Restrictions Management and not Digital Rights Management. According to his analysis DRM is used to limit the rights of consumers and enables rights-holders to exercise unethical control over the consumer's hardware, software and content.</p>
<p>Even though copyrights holders will tell us that DRM helps cut down on wilful and unwitting infringement. For consumers and members of the general public evidence from other countries reveal that DRM in most cases undermines access to knowledge. DRM permits the copyright holder to claim rights that don't exist as per copyright law and to restrict fair dealing (also referred to as far use) guarantees. Fair dealing protections include access by the disabled, use in research or academic context, archiving or making a personal backup, reverse engineering for academic reasons to to create interoperable/competing products/services etc.</p>
<p>The 2012 amendment to the Indian Copyright Act 1957 has resulted in legal recognition for effective technological measures [also called Technological Protection Measures or TPMs] and rights management information [RMI] applied for protecting the rights of the copyright-holder. Circumvention of such a measure could result in a 2 year jail term and a fine.<br /><br />The DRM provisions per the amendment does three things correctly. One, it does not allow copyright-holder to use technological measure as a means to enclose public domain content or secure rights that are not granted to them under the Act. Two, any circumvention to exercise limitations and exceptions under the fair dealing provisions of the Act is not considered to be an offence. Three, it does not criminalise the creation of circumvention technologies. Unfortunately, however the Amendment also gets two things wrong. One, there are onerous recording keeping mandates for those providing circumvention technologies to consumers and members of the general public. Two, the provision does not make the rights-holder responsible for providing the means to consumers and members of the general public who wish to exercise their right to circumvention.<br /><br />Suppose a movie studio released DVD version of its films with DRM that only worked with Microsoft Windows operating system. Those who bought the DVD but ran GNU/Linux or any other operating system would then have a right to circumvent the DRM and republish the content in an video encoding format. This would not be considered an offence because the customer is not attempting any copyright infringement.<br /><br />Suppose a publishing house only released audio versions of its books with DRM that prevented accessibility to the content by the disabled. Another newly-introduced exception specifically for the disabled would apply if the rights-holder has ignored the disabled as a market but not making available accessible versions of their content. In other words, the disabled have a right to make accessible versions for themselves and therefore circumvent the DRM if necessary.</p>
<p>Suppose the very same movie studio also ensured that the DRM on its DVDs prevented customers from extracting video clips. If a teacher borrowed the film from a friend and then used circumvention technology to copy and paste video clips into her classroom presentation. This would not be considered an offence as she was only taking advantage of an exception meant for educational institutions.<br /><br />Suppose a security researcher suspected the DRM technology in network enabled gaming console contained spy-ware. He would have the right to circumvent the DRM and reverse engineer the source code of the console in order to audit the code for the existence of back-doors. This exception will also be used by law enforcement agencies and military/intelligence organisations to purge our supply-chain of electronic infrastructure of spy-ware.</p>
<p>Finally assume a young entrepreneur from Bengaluru wanted to make a competing and yet interoperable product based on an existing product with global market penetration. Assume that the developers of the existing product used DRM to keep their source code and file format inaccessible to competitors. Again under the latest amendment our friend would have the right to circumvent the DRM as long as the code he write is not copied from the existing product.<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/digital-restrictions-management'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/digital-restrictions-management</a>
</p>
No publishersunilCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-18T11:19:35ZBlog Entryಸೃಜನಶೀಲತೆಗೆ ಸಂದ ಗೌರವ
https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act
<b>ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಆವಿಷ್ಕಾರಗಳು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ` ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಅದರ ಮಾಮೂಲು ಅರ್ಥದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿವೆ. ತಡವಾಗಿಯಾದರೂ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಸತ್ತು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ`ದ ಹೊಸ ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆಯೊಂದನ್ನು ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸಿದೆ. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://prajavani.net/include/story.php?news=561&section=51&menuid=15">The article was published by Prajavani on June 9, 2012</a></p>
<p>ಹಲವು ಧನಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಕೆಲವು ಸಂಶಯಗಳಿನ್ನೂ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಹೊಸ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿವಿಧ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳ ತಜ್ಞರಿಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್) ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ ಹಿಂದಿಯ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರ ಹಾಗೂ ಬರಹಗಾರ ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ಚಿತ್ರ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಷ್ಟ- ಕಾರ್ಪಣ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆಕ್ರೋಶದಿಂದ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ರಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇತಿಹಾಸ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ ಇಳಿಗಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಂಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲುವಾಗ ಅವರ ದನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಷಾದವಿತ್ತು.<br /><br />ತಮ್ಮ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಕ್ಕು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದೇ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಕಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ. ಗೌರವಧನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಯಾವುದೇ ಲಾಭ ಇವರಿಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಈ ವಿಚಾರ ಹೇಳುವಾಗ `ಆವಾರಾ`, `420`ಯಂತಹ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಶೈಲೇಂದ್ರ ಅವರಿಗೆ ವೃದ್ಧಾಪ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಔಷಧಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡಲು ಹಣ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದುದು, `ಸೀತಾ ಔರ್ ಗೀತಾ` ಹಾಗೂ `ಸತ್ತೆ ಪೇ ಸತ್ತಾ` ಚಿತ್ರಗಳ ಕಥೆ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದ ಸತೀಶ್ ಭಟ್ನಾಗರ್ ಅನುಭವಿಸಿದ ಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಬರಹಗಾರರು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರನ್ನು ದುಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ತಳ್ಳಿ, ಕೇವಲ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಜೇಬು ತುಂಬಿಸುವ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅಸಮಾಧಾನವಿತ್ತು. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಸುಧಾರಿಸಲು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತರುವುದು ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದರು.<br /><br />ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಲೋಕಸಭೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ `ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ 2012`ಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಪಕ್ಷಭೇದ ಮರೆತು ಸರ್ವಾನುಮತದಿಂದ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ ಕಾಣುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ` ಇದು ಬರಹಗಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ` ಎಂದು ಬಣ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.</p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಚಾರ ಬಂದಾಗ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಹತ್ವದ್ದು ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಅನುಮಾನವೂ ಬೇಡ. ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕುರಿತು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದನ್ನು ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ ಜಯ ಎಂದೇ ವರ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.<br /> <br />ಆದರೆ, ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ವಿಸ್ತೃತವಾದ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಈ ಜಯಘೋಷಗಳ ಅಬ್ಬರದ ನಡುವೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಯಾರ ಕಣ್ಣಿಗೂ, ಕಿವಿಗೂ ಬೀಳದೇ ಹೋಗುವ ಅಪಾಯವೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವು ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳಾಗಿವೆ ನಿಜ. ಜ್ಞಾನ, ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದಂತಹ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ದಕ್ಕಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಆಶಯ ಹೊಂದಿರುವವರನ್ನು ಚಿಂತೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಿಂತನೆಗೆ ದೂಡುವ ಅಂಶಗಳೂ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಡಕವಾಗಿವೆ.<br /><br />ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸೋಣ. ಚಿತ್ರೋದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕಲಾವಿದರೆಲ್ಲ ಹಣದ ಥೈಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಇರಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಸತ್ಯ. ಈ ಕಲಾವಿದರೊಂದಿಗಿನ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳು ಸಹ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮೂಗಿನ ನೇರಕ್ಕೆ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕಟು ಸತ್ಯ.<br /><br />ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿ, ಅದು ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜನೆ, ಗೀತೆ, ಬರಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಅದನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಅದರ ಮಾಲೀಕನಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದೇ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ಕಲಾವಿದ ಅಥವಾ ಬರಹಗಾರ ತನ್ನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಮೂರನೆಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಅವಕಾಶವನ್ನೂ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂತಹ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /><br />ಎಲ್ಲ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಿಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು (ವರ್ತಮಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ) ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿದವರು ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನೂ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಬೆಳೆದಂತೆಲ್ಲ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ (ವಿಡಿಯೋ, ಡಿವಿಡಿ, ಸ್ಯಾಟ್ಲೈಟ್, ಎಂಪಿ ತ್ರಿ, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ರಿಂಗ್ ಟೋನ್ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ). ಈ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮಾಲಿಕರ (ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು) ಬೊಕ್ಕಸ ತುಂಬುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಅವರು ಈ ಆದಾಯವನ್ನು ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಿಯಮ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇಲ್ಲ.<br /> <br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ, ಎರಡು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಲೋಪದೋಷ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವಂತಿದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲಿನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಮೊದಲನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ.<br /><br />ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಡುಗಳ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರಿಗೆ ಈ ಹಾಡನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ, ಅಂದರೆ ಚಿತ್ರಮಂದಿರದ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಇತರ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಗೌರವಧನ ನೀಡಬೇಕು (ಅವರ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧ ವಾರಸುದಾರರು ಅಥವಾ ಕೃತಿ ರಚನೆಕಾರರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಬಹುದು) ಎಂಬುದು ಎರಡನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ. ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿದವರಿಗೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜಕರಿಗೆ ಎರಡನೇ ಹಂತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಹಾಗೂ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನೆರವಾಗುವ ಕ್ರಾಂತಿಕಾರಿ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಶಯವಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಆದರೆ, ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು ಸಿಟ್ಟಿನಿಂದ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾದ ಮಂಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಚಿತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಣ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರಿಸ್ಕ್ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿ ಚಿತ್ರದಿಂದ ಬರುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಲಾಭಗಳನ್ನು ತಮಗೇ ನೀಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಾದರೂ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಗೊಂದಲಗಳು ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾದಂತಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನಗೊಳ್ಳಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಕಾದು ನೋಡಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಗುತ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಕೋರ್ಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯನ್ನೇ ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸುವ ಯತ್ನಗಳು ನಡೆದರೂ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಹುಜನರಿಗೆ ಉಪಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಅಂಶವೆಂದರೆ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸೌಂಡ್ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಬಗೆಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ ಅಡಿ ತಂದಿರುವುದು. (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಆ ಮೂಲ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದ ಭಾಗ ಉದ್ಧರಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.)<br /><br />ಇಂದಿನ ಯುಟ್ಯೂಬ್ ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಕುಳಿತು ರಿಮಿಕ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ತಮ್ಮ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಅಪ್ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ. ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯಚಿತ್ರ ತಯಾರಕರು ಮತ್ಯಾವುದೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಕೆಲ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಚಿತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸಿದ್ದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮ ಎದುರಿಸುವ ಭೀತಿ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /> <br />ಈಗ ತಂದಿರುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಯಿಂದ ಈ ಭಯ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ, ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಬಳಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಅಥವಾ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಲಾಭ ರಹಿತವಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರುವವವರಿಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲಕರವಾಗುವ ಒಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. ಈ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಪ್ರೋಗ್ರಾಂ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ಸಿನಿಮಾದ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಕೊಡಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈಗ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಲ್ಲದ ಕೆಲ ವಿಚಾರಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸೋಣ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಗೀತ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಆದ ಐದು ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೆ ಅದರ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್` (ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ ಅಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗೀತೆಯನ್ನು ಅದೇ ಟ್ಯೂನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲ ಗಾಯಕರ ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರ ಬಳಿ ಹಾಡಿಸುವುದು) ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಜನಪ್ರಿಯ ಗೀತೆಗಳ ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ಗಳ ಆಧರಿಸಿಯೇ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮ ಬದುಕಿದೆ, ಬೆಳೆದಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಮತ್ಯಾರದೋ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಹಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅಕ್ರಮ ಮಾರ್ಗದಂತೆ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್`ಗಳು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೋ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ, ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯವನ್ನು ಇದು ಮುರಿದಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನಾವು ಮರೆಯಬಾರದು.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯ (ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ) ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿಯನ್ನೂ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಪೊ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಪೊ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಹಾಗೂ ಧ್ವನಿ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ 1996ರಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಿರುವ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ) ಧಾಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಅಂದರೆ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾರೂ ಕಳವು, ನಕಲು ಮಾಡದಂತೆ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಕೀಲಿ ಹಾಕುವುದು. ಈ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಕೀಲಿಯನ್ನು ಮುರಿದು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ಈಗ ಅಪರಾಧ. ಆದರೆ, ಡಬ್ಲುಸಿಟಿ ಅಥವಾ ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿಗೆ ಭಾರತ ಇನ್ನೂ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಅನ್ನು ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಇತ್ತೆ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಏಳುತ್ತದೆ. <br /><br />ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೂ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶಂಸಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಮೇಲೆ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾದ ಕಾನೂನು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾದ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗಿಂತ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮವಾಗಿದೆ. ಭವಿಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದಗಳಾದ `ವಿಪೊ` ಮತ್ತು `ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿ`ಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಬಂದೇ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ.</p>
<p>ಆಗ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒತ್ತಡ ಬರುವ ಮುನ್ನವೇ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಕಾನೂನು ರೂಪಿಸುವ ದೂರದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಾಣ್ಮೆಯನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ನೀತಿ ನಿರೂಪಕರು ಈಗ ತೋರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.<br /><br />ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರಿಗೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಲಾಭ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಹಾಗೂ ಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮುಕ್ತ ಬಳಕೆಯ ಅವಕಾಶ ಇವೆರಡರ ನಡುವೆ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಸಾಧಿಸುವಂತೆ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಹಾಲಿವುಡ್ ಉದ್ಯಮದ ಅಗಾಧ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯಿಂದ ಕಾಲಾಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಹಕ್ಕುಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಪಡೆದ ಮಾಲೀಕರತ್ತ ವಾಲಿತ್ತು.<br /> <br />ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಲೆಕ್ಕಕ್ಕೇ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಅಸಮತೋಲನ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವರಿಗೂ ಒಳಿತಾಗುವಂತೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತಂದಿದೆ. ಮುಂದಿನ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಕುರಿತು ವಿಶದವಾಗಿ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನಂತೆ ಒಕ್ಕೊರಲಿನಿಂದ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸೋಣ.</p>
<p>ಆಲ್ಟರ್ನೇಟಿವ್ ಲಾ ಫೋರಂನ ಸ್ಥಾಪಕರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬರಾದ ಲೇಖಕರು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತಜ್ಞರು.</p>
<hr />
<p>
Read the English translation below:</p>
<h2>The pros and cons of the Copyright Amendment Act 2012</h2>
<p>In his passionate speech in debate on the Rajya Sabha the noted lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar highlighted the plight of a number of musicians, lyricists and film writers who despite having contributed to some of the most important films in Indian history remained in poverty since they did not receive any benefits by way of royalties for their work. Examples of artists who suffered in penury unable to even afford medicines range from Shailendra who gave us the lyrics for films like Awara and Shree 420 to writer Satish Bhatnagar who wrote ‘Seeta aur Geeta’ and ‘Satte pe Satta’. Akhtar argued that the copyright amendment was a necessary corrective to a system that had worked incredibly well for film producers at the cost of artists. It was not surprising then that the Copyright Amendment Act 2012 saw a surprising consensus from all the political parties in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and has been hailed as an amendment that restores rights to writers and musicians.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the Copyright Amendment 2011 is one of the most significant developments in copyright law and while the media attention has been on the victory of artists against film producers it is important to remember that the amendment itself covers a much wider gamut of issues which runs the risk of being lost in the euphoria of this victory. While there are many welcome changes that have been brought about by the Amendment, there are also many others which should give cause of concern for anyone interested in public interest issues of wider access to knowledge, culture and technology. Lets start with the good news first.</p>
<p>It is well known that artists working in the film industry have historically been at a significant disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with the film producers who control the money and consequently dictate the terms of contracts with people who contribute to the film. Even though copyright law says that the owner of copyright is the creator of the work there has always existed an exception which allows the creator to assign their rights to a third party. The assignment agreements are heavily tilted in favour of the producers and all rights in all mediums (present and future) are handed over to the producer. It is a common experience that the creators of copyright are rarely ever the owners of copyright. As the secondary market for films and music developed with each generation of technology (videos, DVD, Satelite, MP3s, mobile ring tones) the owners of content found a situation in which we saw an evergreening of their property guaranteeing an eternal source of revenue which they were not obliged to share with any of the contributors. The amendment seeks to correct this by bringing in two significant changes. Firstly it says that an assignment of rights shall only be for a medium of exploitation which was in existence at the time of the assignment. It also says that authors of a literary or musical work used in a film song lyrics shall have a right to receive royalties from the work if the work is used in any manner other than as a part of a film shown in a cinema hall (the right may be assigned only to legal heirs or to a collecting society).</p>
<p>There can be no arguing that this is a radical amendment that significantly alters the ability of creators to participate in the benefits of secondary markets and also increase their bargaining power. Film producers on the other hand are livid arguing that as the primary investors and risk takers in a film they should be entitled to all the benefits accruing from the film. While the amendment is very welcome it is not bereft of ambiguities and possible complications, and we have to wait and see how the law will now be enforced. It is also likely that there will be constitutional challenges on the grounds that this is in violation of freedom of contract and the right to trade, and possibly even attempts to subvert the law. But for the moment lets celebrate a very significant victory for creators.</p>
<p>Even as creators celebrate, we should also toast the amendment for its sensitive response to the demands made by the visually disabled community. Technology has bridged the incredible gap that existed for disabled people desiring to access books and other materials. Braille was a horribly expensive and archaic technology but screen reading software has made it possible for visually disabled people to convert books into digital formats which can be read through mobile phones, computers and digital tablets. But it was impossible to convert books without violating the rights of copyright owners since the right to make electronic versions of the book is their exclusive right. The Amendment now carves out an exception for people with disabilities to be able – as a matter of right- to create digital versions and Sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B now allow the creation of ‘any accessible format’ without needing to pay royalty.</p>
<p>Another very significant amendment is the extension of the fair use provision to all classes of works including films and sound recordings. In this era of youtube when people routinely create their own remixes, upload clips this is a very welcome amendment. Any amateur or documentary film maker will testify to the difficulty hat the face when they need to use music or video clips as a part of their films and they do so with the constant threat of being sued for copyright infringement. The amendment allows a person to use film and music clips for private or personal use including research, as well as for criticism or review of that work. It is to be noted that the word criticism has been interpreted by the courts to include the ability to create parodies of the original work. Other people who should welcome the act includes educational institutions and non profit libraries who are now allowed to rent or lend a lawfully acquired copy of a software program, music and films.</p>
<p>And now for some of the not so good news. The amendment makes it more difficult to create cover versions of songs and cover versions can now not be made for a period of five year form the time of the recording of the song. As is well known the Indian music industry has grown on the basis of the freedom to make cover versions. While cover versions may seem like an unfair way of benefiting form someone else’s creation the fact of the matter is that version recording has been one of the most significant ways in which the music industry was demonopolized. The Amendment also brings in Digital rights Management (DRM) to keep India in tune with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. DRM are essentially digital or technology locks that are used to protect content and the law now makes it an offence to circumvent any technology lock. It is questionable whether this is a desirable introduction. India is not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and hence there is no need to bring DRM into Indian law. Having said that one must also appreciate that the Indian law on DRM is perhaps one of the best in the world, and one can speculate that the law makers decided to bring in a home grown version more suited to Indian reality knowing that at some point if time there would be global pressure on Indian to sign onto the two treaties and then there would be less bargaining power in terms of the law that would have been introduced.</p>
<p>Copyright was always supposed to be balance between providing incentives to creators and ensuring that there was adequate public access to knowledge. Over the years the rise of media monopolies and the might of Hollywood effectively ensured that this balance tilted heavily in favour of rights owners against the interests of creators and the general public. The Copyright amendment demonstrates that when such imbalances threaten creativity and free speech it is incumbent on the government to respond with necessary and adequate measures that serve the greater good. There will be time in the coming future to discuss and debate the specific amendments in detail, but for now lets join the parliament in unanimously welcoming a much over due amendment to the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-18T11:22:07ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment: Bad, but Could Have Been Much Worse
https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment
<b>The changes to the Copyright Act protect the disabled - but are restrictive about cover versions and web freedom, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in the Business Standard on June 10, 2012.</b>
<p>When the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, was passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha on May 22, it meant that there was little reason for celebration, some not-so-great news, and a lot of pretty bad news.</p>
<p>The only real reason for unqualified celebration is the amendment’s introduction of a robust exception for the disabled. It is bleeding-edge policy formulation, as it is right up there alongside the Treaty for the Visually Impaired currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The Indian exception is more robust: first, it is disability-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses the needs of the print-impaired; and second, it is works-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses books and printed works. In brief, given the very limited circulation of copyrighted works amongst the disabled, they now can convert inaccessible works to accessible formats and share them with each other on a non-profit basis. No royalty needs to be paid to the rights-holders for this conversion and the resultant access. Other reasons to celebrate include the newly introduced exception for non-commercial lending and the extension of fair dealing (or fair use) to all works.</p>
<p>Now for some middling news. The Digital Rights Management provision makes it an offence punishable with a fine and a two-year jail term to circumvent “effective technological measures” (also called Technological Protection Measures) and remove “rights management information” (RMI). The provision protects public interest since it does not allow rights-holders to claim rights unavailable under copyright law, and does not prevent consumers and citizens from benefiting from the various fair dealing (or fair use) exceptions and limitations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the provision mandates onerous record-keeping for those providing circumvention technologies, and also does not insist that the rights-holder provide the means for circumvent when the consumer or citizen legitimately needs to do so.<br /><br />The first piece of bad news is that an inadequate “safe harbour” provision has been introduced for Internet intermediaries. Like the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act has also gotten the configuration of the intermediary liability regime wrong. This was the opportunity to finally protect common carriers, platforms for social media and commons-based peer-production (such as free software and open content). In short, search engines are finally legal in India, and so are ISPs, virtual private network providers and content delivery networks.<br /><br />But unfortunately, social media platforms such as Facebook and peer-production platforms like Wikipedia are not afforded sufficient immunity to thrive as real-time participatory platforms. The take-down procedure is designed to provide instant relief to rights-holders, as intermediaries are supposed to remove content immediately. They have the option of reinstating content if the take-down notice is not followed within three weeks by a court order. This mechanism will have a chilling effect on free speech — given that Indian internet service providers very obviously privilege the interests of intellectual property rights-holders over those of the ISPs’ customers — as most recently illustrated by their over-compliance with certain John Doe court orders emerging from the Madras High Court.</p>
<p>The second piece of bad news is the extension of the term of protection for photographs. It has gone from being “sixty years after publication” to “sixty years after the death of the photographer”. Sixty years from publication was already in excess of the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Now we are in excess of WIPO Copyright Treaty requirements, even though India is not a signatory. The possibility of grandchildren earning royalties does not serve as an incentive for shutterbugs to take more photos or better photos. It is not even clear if one can monetise the average photo after the first decade. Therefore, the global public domain has been substantially impoverished, without any evidence that this will make the photographers reciprocally wealthier.<br /><br />It does not stop there. In the age of hip-hop, trance, jhankar beats and turntables, one would have hoped that our law-makers would at least get the provision for “cover versions” or “remixes” right. Cover versions in India are doubly useful both in terms of aesthetics and profits — and yet the relevant provision can only be described as mediaeval. Cover versions can be produced only after a gap of five years; they have to be restricted to the same medium as the original; payment from them must be made in advance for 5,000 copies (should all those who sang commercially viable cover violations of “Kolaveri Di” be considered lawbreakers?); and there are strict limits on what are acceptable alterations to the original. The “alterations” have to be “reasonable” and “technically necessary”. Today, affordable yet sophisticated multimedia technologies allow teenagers to build professional sound recording studios in their bedrooms — and our government is seeking to restrict them to boring word-for-word and note-for-note covers.<br /><br />And it gets worse. Bowing to pressure from foreign publishers’ associations, the government deleted the “parallel importation” provision at the last minute. The inclusion of this provision would have made it clear that works reproduced with the rights-holders’ permission in other countries could be imported into India. Foreign publishers and their lobbyists went all-out with a propaganda campaign predicting a dystopia filled with pirated books, surplus books dumped from overseas and starving, uncompensated authors. Had our government not caved, this clarification in law would have gone a long way in dismantling distribution monopolies and made the market much more competitive. The resultant increase in choice and reduction in cost would have benefited everyone. Human Resources Development Minister Sibal promised both Houses during the passage of the amendment that he would revisit this, and let’s hope he does so — especially for our libraries and our second-hand book stores, and for the students and disabled amongst us.</p>
<p>The writer is at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. <a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunil-abraham-copyright-amendment-badcould-have-been-much-worse/476845/">Click</a> to read the original published by Business Standard.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment</a>
</p>
No publishersunilCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-15T12:29:39ZBlog EntryA Ludicrous Ban
https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban
<b>Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang have written an article for the Open Magazine about the bizarre ways in which the Internet is regulated in 21st century India. </b>
<p>Small acts can have outsize consequences. In 15th century England, Richard III lamented that for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. In 21st century India, the question is this: for want of copyright protection for a single film, will the whole Internet be lost? On 29 March 2012, the Madras High Court issued an order whose effect Internet users in the country are still reeling from. As we go to press, most Internet users in India are unable to access a number of popular websites that millions of people around the world use every day. These banned websites are not forums for human trafficking or illegal weapon sales, but merely extensions of ordinary human activity like learning, sharing and growing—activities that are particularly well facilitated by the Internet. That the websites have been banned is of great concern; that the order purportedly banning them, and its effect, are both inexplicable and badly understood is of greater concern still.</p>
<p>How did we get here?</p>
<p>These are the facts. Earlier in the year, a little-known Chennai firm called Copyright Labs filed a petition on behalf of RK Productions, seeking protection for their client’s upcoming release—the Tamil film 3—against copyright infringement on the Internet. The film had not opened to audiences yet; the petition sought pre-emptive protection. In response, the Madras High Court passed a ‘John Doe’ order—John Doe being American shorthand for the anonymous everyman—which has a wide, sweeping scope and is designed to protect against potential offences by necessarily nameless persons, or in other words, everyone. The order applied to several Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as the aforesaid nameless persons (the John Doe of India is, apparently, ‘Ashok Kumar’), binding them, and their heirs, assignees, representatives and the whole shebang, against infringing copyright in relation to the film on networks they administer.</p>
<p>In apparent compliance with the John Doe order, Indian ISPs reacted with obsequious haste, in singular—and totally arbitrary—fashion. Between them, they have blocked a range of torrent sites (like the Pirate Bay, which is always Target No. 1, regardless of the circumstances), a few video-sharing sites like Vimeo and DailyMotion, and for good measure, some unrelated and completely irrelevant websites such as Xmarks, which allows users to share and sync bookmarks, and Pastebin, a service to store text and code. The weirdest aspect of this countrywide clampdown on a large chunk of the Internet is that the Madras High Court order did not actually specify any websites to block at all. How—and <em>why</em>—the ISPs zeroed in on these particular entities remains a mystery.</p>
<p>The Pirate Bay certainly hosts large amounts of pirated material, but it is also in some part a way to distribute legitimate content legitimately; Vimeo, on the other hand, is the distribution channel of choice for independent films uploaded by the filmmakers themselves; Pastebin has strict policies that are respectful of copyright and is mostly used by free and open source developers to tweak and relay copyright-free software. The sweep of this clampdown by the ISPs defies logic by deeming <em>everything</em> illegal: the wedding video that we cherish and put up to share with our friends, the small, independently financed film we wish to distribute electronically, the piece of free and open source software we just improved upon and would like the world to know about. Luckily for us, any blocking action imposed by local ISPs can be easily subverted by going through a virtual private network—a proxy—and if you’d like to see just how easy and quick this is to execute, please go to http://anonymouse.org. You’re welcome.</p>
<p>But first, the law. There is some confusion as to whether blocking whole websites for copyright infringement is legally permissible, and the answer is mostly no—and partly yes. The procedure for blocking websites in India is governed by Section 69A of the Information Techno- logy Act 2000, as amended in 2008 (the IT Act). Section 69A of the IT Act gives the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of very specific circumstances, namely: a) in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of lndia, b) for the defence of India, c) for the security of the State, d) for friendly relations with foreign States, e) for public order, or f) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to the previous points. Failure to comply with a blocking order thus issued is punishable by imprisonment and fines.</p>
<p>Importantly, however, <em>neither</em> copyright infringement nor obscenity (the other popular trigger for censorious actions) is listed as grounds for which a website may be blocked. Sure, the IT Act has specific provisions that lay out the consequences of transmitting obscene material and the infringement of copyright, but being blocked is not one of them. On the basis of its powers under Section 69A(2), the government has laid out procedures for blocking websites and notified the Information Technology Rules, 2009 (with the ‘Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public’), as well as designated nodal officers who can receive these complaints under the Act.</p>
<p>Section 6 of these IT Rules lays out a clear procedure for initiating and implementing a block. The procedure not only involves a thorough examination of the claims, but also reiterates the grounds under which a request for a block might be permissible, namely, the conditions laid out in the IT Act. Section 7 of the same IT Rules lays out the procedure for examination of the request and places it in the hands of a committee; the procedure involves the participation of several high-ranking officials and outlines detailed steps, such as contacting the potentially offending parties and giving them time to respond or take action as appropriate, only after which blocking may be deployed if still necessary.</p>
<p>The law is clear that copyright infringement cannot be legitimate grounds for the blocking of a website. Section 79 of the IT Act, in fact, explicitly provides safe harbour for ISPs, though the controversial Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011, have made a mockery of this section. These Intermediary Rules are currently the subject of heated debate, with many civil society organisations and even some parliamentarians calling for them to be repealed. (You can learn more about the protests at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.it2011.in">www.it2011.in</a>).</p>
<p>As things stand, a copyright holder can ask for the removal of infringing content by sending a take-down notice under the provisions of the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, however flawed they are, or by asking for a John Doe order. A take-down notice is a complaint by the copyright holder to a website, indicating the specific uniform resource locator (URL) where the infringement is allegedly happening. It is a procedure further reinforced in the 2012 amendment to the Indian Copyright Act, which reiterates the rights of intermediaries, such as ISPs, to transmit any potentially infringing content until a take-down notice is sent and examined. A John Doe order, by its wide, sweeping nature, is normally exercised with the greatest caution, and only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. John Doe orders do not provide for public examination and discussion of claims; they do not allow any other side—other than the petitioning party—to state their case; and they can be badly misunderstood by the parties involved, as vividly demonstrated in this case.</p>
<p>In this case, both the petition and the order are questionable in several ways. The Tamil film 3—starring Dhanush and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajini- kanth’s daughter Aishwarya—is not exceptional. It is one of the hundreds of Tamil films made this year, following on from the thousands of Tamil films made thus far. There is no particular reason why this film alone is worthy of a John Doe order. Ironically, it is exceptional only in that until Copyright Labs’ petition, the film served as a working demonstration of the benefits of a free and open Internet: the reason we knew of the film was the massive publicity generated by the viral hit ‘Kolaveri Di’—a song whose popularity spiralled by being shared freely and widely, regardless of copyright ownership. In the case of ‘Kolaveri Di,’ the producers saw the piracy of the song as publicity, and encouraged it. Then, it would seem, they decided that any piracy of the film was, well, piracy—and decided to stop it in the most insensible and ruthless manner possible. And there you have it: not only can you now have your cake and eat it too, you can also smash it in the faces of millions of users with impunity.</p>
<p>Copyright Labs, the previously unknown firm in Chennai that acted for the producers of 3 appears to be run by one Harish Ram, whose Twitter feed covers the catastrophe in revealing detail. Facing the wrath of fellow tweeters who were outraged at their inability to access their favourite websites, his collected responses on the handle @harishramlh instructively outline the disastrous way by which the court order he wanted has been implemented. Harish claims that his firm was forced to take action because infringing sites “don’t respond”. His cry for help would be plausible except for one inconvenient detail: the film 3 released on 30 March 2012, and the John Doe order was obtained on 29 March 2012—a day <em>before</em> the film’s release. What kind of piracy could Copyright Labs have been trying to battle unsuccessfully prior to the film’s release? There are instances of pre-screening prints of a film making it to torrent sites, though these are rare. Most often, the piracy of a film only happens after its public release. At the time of Copyright Labs’ petition, it is likely that very few or no take-down notices had been served because very few or no infringing acts had been committed yet: this is the very basis of the petition and ensuing order. (A quick search on Pirate Bay confirms that the only torrents related to the film are dated after its release, and not before). A little while later, perhaps upon discovering that he too cannot watch his best friend’s wedding video on Vimeo, Harish casually tweets that he has “written to unblock the whole site and block only specific piracy links” and presto, Vimeo is unblocked.</p>
<p>Regulators, take note. This is how the Internet is governed in 21st century India: by the fluctuating whims of an excited young man in Chennai in possession of a court order he neither deserves nor understands.</p>
<p>Thanks to the fact that our governments and corporations are constantly fantasising about how to censor our Internet (and frequently succeeding), the people who bring us the Internet, the hapless ISPs, have been beaten into submission; they now jump to the mildest murmur of reproach with wildly imaginative and unduly overreaching reactions. The last thing we need in an online environment full of dirty tricks is more dirty tricks. If anyone in power has any desire to keep the Internet working for the millions of Indians who prosper by it, safe harbour for ISPs must be restored in the IT Act—and the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules must be repealed.</p>
<p>Our courts cannot be used as quack-houses to buy pills for imaginary problems. The copyright industry is not a sick patient; it’s just a hypochondriac. Films don’t fail because of piracy; they fail because they’re not worth watching. The most popular films in this country are also the most pirated, and yet they remain money-spinners. The real problem is the unbending inability of this industry to adjust to the world; to the Internet; to the life-changing technologies that human beings have witnessed and embraced and prospered by over the past two decades. Instead of responding to these changes creatively, film producers and music distributors think that digging in their heels and acting like petulant children is going to delude consumers into seeing them as something grander than they are. The reality is that they are simply packers of culture and knowledge who aren’t even wrapping up their products competently. For now, though, these children have been given a nuclear bomb to play with, and they just used it to kill a cockroach. Beware the radiation.</p>
<p><em>Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher at the Alternative Law Forum; Achal Prabhala is a writer and researcher in Bangalore</em></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/a-ludicrous-ban#.T8wh4gZuXto.twitter">Click</a> to read the original published in the Open Magazine on June 2, 2012</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherAchal Prabhala and Lawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-04T04:22:11ZBlog EntryAn FAQ on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, for the Benefit of Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012
<b>The Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 introduced certain provisions for the benefit of persons with disabilities and as it has been passed by both houses of parliament (By the Rajya Sabha on May 17, 2012 and the Lok Sabha on May 22, 2012). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
</p>
<ol><li><strong>Who does this amendment benefit?</strong><br />This amendment benefits all persons with disabilities who cannot enjoy works in their normal format thus amongst others it would cover totally blind, low vision, learning disabled, the deaf and hard of hearing and orthopedically challenged people who are unable to hold books or turn its pages.</li><li><strong>What can be done now that was not possible earlier? </strong><br />Persons with disabilities who cannot access a work in their normal format and organizations can suitably modify a work so as to make it accessible to meet the specific needs of the person with disability. This means that a standard printed book, for example may be converted to an alternate format (not necessarily a special format) including Braille, large font, text readable by screen reader, audio (be it synthetic audio or human voice recording) without seeking the permission of the rights holder.</li><li><strong>How is this different?</strong> <br />In the past, any alternate format creation would have been an infringement unless it was backed up by prior written permission from the rights holder. One had to seek the permission if one had to be on the right side of the law. Now these permissions are not needed for non-profit conversion and distribution.</li><li><strong>Are there any restrictions? Yes, there are reasonable restrictions such as:</strong><br />(a) conversion should be a not for profit activity. In case it is a for profit activity, there is a separate clause under which a special license can be obtained.- <br />(b) The accessible format copy has to be distributed to a bonafide print impaired person or organizations that serve them.<br />(c) reasonable precaution need to be taken by all that the accessible copy is not misused commercially.</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of a “work”?</strong><br />A work means:<br />(a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;<br />(b) a cinematograph film; <br />(c) and a sound recording;<br />It includes all works which are available in India in the normal channels of business.</li><li><strong>What activities are permitted for the benefit of persons with disabilities?</strong><br />The adaption, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format to facilitate persons with disability to access works.</li><li><strong>Is permission required from publishers to undertake the above activities?</strong><br />No, permission from publishers are not required to undertake the above activities subject to the points given below.</li><li><strong>What are “accessible formats”?</strong><br />Accessible formats include, Braille, audio (be it synthetic audio or human voice recording), Daisy, accessible pdf, large print, movies with subtitles etc.</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of “adaption”?</strong><br />“Adaption” in relation to any work, mean any use of such work involving its re-arrangement or alteration. Conversion of a work into an accessible format would be treated as an adaption</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of “communication to the public”?</strong><br />"Communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work. This includes making the accessible format copy available over the Internet or distributing it from a website.</li><li><strong>Who can create and distribute accessible formats?</strong><br />(a) Any person can create and distribute accessible formats if it is done for facilitating access by persons with disabilities. Parents, friends and persons with disabilities themselves can create accessible formats.<br />(b) An organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities can also create and distribute accessible formats.</li><li><strong>Are there any preconditions on the type of organization that can undertake the activities?</strong><br />Yes, the organization must satisfy one of the following conditions to undertake the activities: <br />(a) The organization must be registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and work for the benefit of persons with disability; or<br />(b) The organization must be recognized under Chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; or <br />(c) The organization must receive grants from the Government for facilitating access to persons with disabilities; or <br />(d) The organization must be an educational institution or library or archives recognized by the Government.</li><li><strong>Can accessible format copies be shared between persons with disabilities? </strong><br />Yes, they can be shared</li><li><strong>Can any of the activities be undertaken for profit?</strong><br />No, for profit activities require a separate license from the copyright board. This license <span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>will prescribe several conditions including the royalty, if any, that must be paid. For further details, see point 23 of this note.</li><li><strong>Can the costs of production of accessible format copies be recovered?</strong><br />Yes the cost can be recovered.</li><li><strong>Does this mean that the publisher has to give you a soft copy? </strong><br />No. Publishers are not required to give a soft copy under the amendment. </li><li><strong>What steps are required to be taken by organizations who undertake the activity?</strong><br />The organization must ensure that the copies of works in such accessible format are made available to persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business. </li><li><strong>Can works be simplified so that people with psycho social disabilities or intellectual disabilities can enjoy the work?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can subtitles be added to movies and other audio visual work for the benefit of the deaf/hard of hearing?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can audio descriptions be added to movies and other audio visual works for the benefit of the blind/low vision?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can an organization in India import or export accessible format copies from/to organizations and beneficiaries abroad?</strong><br />The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, does not address import and export and this depends on various factors and legal preconditions. In this case, it is advisable to check with your legal advisors before undertaking such an activity.</li><li><strong>What is the wording of the section?</strong><br />Section 52 (1)The following act shall not be an infringement of copyright, namely:<br />(zb) the adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, by —<br />(i) any person to facilitate persons with disability to access to works including sharing with any person with disability of such accessible format for private or personal use, educational purpose or research; or<br />(ii) any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities in case the normal format prevents the enjoyment of such works by such persons:<br />Provided that the copies of the works in such accessible format are made available to the persons with disabilities on a nonprofit basis but to recover only the cost of production:<br />Provided further that the organization shall ensure that the copies of works in such accessible format are used by persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business.<br />Explanation. For the purposes of the sub-clause, “any organization” includes an organization registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and working for the benefit of persons with disability or recognized under Chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and <span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>Full Participation) Act, 1995 or receiving grants from the Government for facilitating access to persons with disabilities or an educational institution or library or archives recognized by the Government.</li><li><strong>What is the wording of the section relating to for profit activity?</strong><br />³31B. (1) Any person working for the benefit of persons with disability on a profit basis or for business may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (zb) of sub-section (1) of section 52 does not apply and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to dispose of such application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application.<br />(2) The Copyright Board may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), inquire, or direct such inquiry as it considers necessary to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith.<br />(3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. <br />(4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued including the rate or royalty: Provided that where the Copyright Board has issued such a compulsory license it may, on a further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owners of rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. </li></ol>
<hr />
<h3>Compiled By:</h3>
<div>
<div>
<ol><li>The Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged (XRCVC)<br />Dr. Sam Taraporevala <br />St. Xavier’s College, 5 Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001<br />#+91-22-22623298/ + 91- 9967028769 <br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:sam@xrcvc.org">sam@xrcvc.org</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:info@xrcvc.org">info@xrcvc.org</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.xrcvc.org">www.xrcvc.org</a></li><li>Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy<br />Rahul Cherian<br />12/21 Custain Beach Road, Santhome,<br />Chennai – 600004<br /># +91 9840357991<br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:rahul.cherian@inclusiveplanet.com">rahul.cherian@inclusiveplanet.com</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.inclusiveplanet.org.in">www.inclusiveplanet.org.in</a></li></ol>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherDr. Sam Taraporevala and Rahul CherianAccessibilityCopyright2012-06-02T04:35:51ZBlog EntryThe International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles
https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright
<b>This event organised by Max Planck Institute was held in Munich, Germany on May 14 and 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event.</b>
<h2>List of Participants</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Mr. Olatunji Babatunde Adetula</td>
<td>Director, Nigerian Copyright Commission</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa</td>
<td>African University for Science and Technology & University of California School of Law, Irvine</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Michael W. Carroll</td>
<td>Professor of Law, <br />Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property,<br />American University, Washington College of Law</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Alberto Cerda Silva</td>
<td>S.J.D. Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Research Associate,Knowledge Ecology International<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Vera Franz</td>
<td>Senior Program Manager<br />Open Society Information Program<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Christophe Geiger</td>
<td>Associate Professor<br />Director General<br />Director of the Research Department<br />CEIPI, Université de Strasbourg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Daniel Gervais</td>
<td>FedEx Research Professor of Law<br />Co-Director, Vanderbilt Intellectual Property Program<br />Vanderbilt University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Cristiana Gonzalez</td>
<td>Senior Researcher<br />Universidade de São Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Teresa Hackett</td>
<td>Programme Manager EIFL</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty</td>
<td>Managing Director<br />Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich<br />Honorary Professor at the University of Munich<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Zorina Khan</td>
<td>Professor<br />Department of Economics<br />Bowdoin College</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Kaya Köklü</td>
<td>Senior Research Fellow<br />Intellectual Property and Competition Law<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Eniko Kovacs</td>
<td>Program Manager<br />Academic Fellowship Program, HESP<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif</td>
<td>Intellectual Property and Technology Senior<br />Programme Manager<br />International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Mayara Nascimento Santos Leal</td>
<td>Division of Intellectual Property<br />Economic Department<br />Ministry of External Relations, Brazil</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Lydia Loren</td>
<td>Professor of Law<br />Kay Kitagawa & Andy Johnson-Laird IP Faculty Scholar<br />Lewis & Clark Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Viviana Munoz Tellez</td>
<td>Programme Officer, IAKP<br />The South Centre</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Ruth Okediji</td>
<td>William L. Prosser Professor of Law<br />University of Minnesota Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Pranesh Prakash</td>
<td>Programme Manager<br />The Center for Internet and Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. G.R. Raghavender</td>
<td>Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP & CR)<br />Copyright Office<br />Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Jerome H. Reichman</td>
<td>Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law<br />Duke University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Manon Ress</td>
<td>Director of Information Society Projects <br />Knowledge Ecology International</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Carolina Rossini</td>
<td>Senior Fellow at GPOPAI, University of Sao Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Susan Strba</td>
<td>Expert and Author, Copyright L&Es for Education in Africa</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Luis Villaroel Villalon</td>
<td>Director de Investigación Corporación Innovarte</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Moktar Warida</td>
<td>First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the United Nations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Raquel Xalabarder Plantada</td>
<td>Director, Learning Resources<br />Vice President’s Office, Faculty and Academic Organization<br />Open University of Catalonia</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Workshop Associates</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Lindsey Niznik</td>
<td>Senior, University of Minnesota</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peju Solarin</td>
<td>Doctoral Candidate<br />International Max Planck Research School on Retaliation, Mediation, and Punishment, Max Planck Institute </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ceipi.edu/uploads/media/Munich_Workshop_List_of_Participants_5_9_12-1.pdf">See the original here</a>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright'>https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-01T04:29:36ZNews Item