The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 101 to 115.
Signing and Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/signing-and-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-to-facilitate-access-to-published-works-for-persons-blind-visually-impaired-print-disabled
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society sent the following letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development on March 14, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">14 March 2014<br />Shri Ashok Thakur<br />Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development<br />Government of India<br />New Delhi</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dear Sir,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span>Subject: Signing and Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled </span></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span>
<li>I write to you on behalf of The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India <b>(“CIS”)</b>. CIS is actively involved in work on accessibility<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> and access to knowledge<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></li>
<li>The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled<b> (“Marrakesh Treaty”) </b>was signed on June 28, 2013 at Marrakesh, Morocco. Reportedly, the Marrakesh Treaty was signed by over fifty countries on the final day of the Diplomatic Conference held to finalize this treaty, in late June, last year.</li>
<li>We are given to understand that reportedly<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3] </a>the Union Cabinet had in its meeting held at the end of last year cleared the Marrakesh Treaty for both, signature and ratification.</li>
<li>We write this letter to enquire about the status of India’s signing of the Marrakesh Treaty.</li>
<li>We strongly believe that the signing and ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty would be in India’s best interests, and in consonance with the amendments made to India’s copyright law in 2012, as reflected in India’s Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Marrakesh Treaty.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a></li>
<li>In light of this we request you to take the necessary steps for the signature and ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty as a consolidation of India’s long standing commitment to providing access to books and printed material to the blind, visually impaired and persons with other print disabilities.</li>
<li>We would be deeply obliged to provide you with any assistance necessary.</li>
</ol>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. See <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility">http://cis-india.org/accessibility</a> (last accessed 14 March, 2014).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. See <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/">http://cis-india.org/a2k</a> (last accessed 14 March, 2014).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. Email correspondence from Dr. Sam Taraporevala, available here- <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/daisyforumofindia/tksq9kAdD0Q">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/daisyforumofindia/tksq9kAdD0Q</a> (last accessed 13 March, 2014). and here- <a href="http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/marrakesh_lists.keionline.org/2013-November/000240.html">http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/marrakesh_lists.keionline.org/2013-November/000240.html</a> (last accessed 13 March, 2014).; Email correspondence from Shamnad Basheer, available here- <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/spicyip/DupESMX2lkg">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/spicyip/DupESMX2lkg</a> (last accessed 13 March, 2014). See also <a href="http://spicyip.com/2013/12/marrakesh-blind-treaty-okayed-for-signature-and-ratification.html">http://spicyip.com/2013/12/marrakesh-blind-treaty-okayed-for-signature-and-ratification.html</a> (last accessed 13 March, 2014).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. See <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind</a> (last accessed 13 March, 2014).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/signing-and-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-to-facilitate-access-to-published-works-for-persons-blind-visually-impaired-print-disabled'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/signing-and-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-to-facilitate-access-to-published-works-for-persons-blind-visually-impaired-print-disabled</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-05-06T08:32:58ZBlog EntryIndia'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 EntryTranscripts 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 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-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/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:51:38ZFileConsumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report
https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012
<b>Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012. The report was published on the A2K Network website.</b>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist. India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is unfortunate that the larger public interest in copyright-related issues are never foregrounded in India. For instance, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings without calling a single consumer rights organization, and without seeking any civil society engagement, except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations, including consumer rights organizations, sending in a written submission to the Standing Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This lopsidedness in terms of policy influence is resulting in greater imbalance in the law, as evidenced by the government's capitulation to a handful of influential multinational book publishers on the question of allowing parallel importation of copyrighted works. Furthermore, pressure from the United States and the European Union, in the form of the Special 301 report and the India-EU free trade agreement that is being negotiated are leading to numerous negative changes being introduced into Indian law, despite us not having any legal obligation under any treaties. Such influence only works in one direction: to increase the rights granted to rightsholders, and has so far never included any increase in user rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Visually impaired persons, for instance, have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works.</p>
<hr />
<p>Source URL: <a href="http://bit.ly/QEJf5l">http://bit.ly/QEJf5l</a><br /><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/ci-ip-watchlist-report-2012" class="internal-link">Click</a> to download the report [PDF, 201 Kb]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-08-16T10:23:36ZBlog EntryThe Law and Economics of Copyright Users Rights
https://cis-india.org/news/pijip-september-26-2013-the-law-and-economics-of-copyright-users-rights
<b>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law is organizing a conference on law and economics of copyright users at Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington DC, on September 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham will present an update on the Pervasive Technologies project as keynote at this meeting.</b>
<p>Click to read the original announcement <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pijip-impact.org/events/law-and-economics-of-copyright-users-rights/">published by the Washington College of Law here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2:00</td>
<td>Welcome by PIJIP Director Michael Carroll</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2:15</td>
<td>
<p>Copyright Flexibilities and Social and Economic Development: Current State of Knowledge</p>
<ul>
<li><i>Moderator:</i> Walter Park, American University Department of Economics (<a href="http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/wgp.cfm">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Christian Handke, Erasmus University Rotterdam (<a href="https://www.eshcc.eur.nl/handke/">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Joost Poort, University of Amersterdam (<a href="http://www.ivir.nl/staff/poort.html">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Piotr Stryszowski, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (<a href="http://ideas.repec.org/f/pst520.html">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Rokia Alavi, International Islamic University of Malaysia (<a href="http://enm.iium.edu.my/CV/2011/ec_cv_rokiah.pdf">C.V.</a>)</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:00</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:15</td>
<td>
<p>Roundtable: Copyright Users Rights in Law Reform</p>
<ul>
<li><span><i>Moderator:</i> Sean Flynn, American University Washington College of Law</span></li>
<li>Jeremy Debeer, University of Ottawa, Canada (<a href="http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/jeremy-de-beer.html">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Rebecca Giblin, Monash University, Australia (<a href="http://monash.edu/research/people/profiles/profile.html?sid=7302&pid=3945">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Caroline Ncube, University of Cape Town, South Africa (<a href="http://www.commerciallaw.uct.ac.za/staff/academic/cncube">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Alberto Cerda, Georgetown University and Universidad de Chile (<a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/graduate-programs/sjd/student-profiles/alberto_cerda_silva.cfm">Bio</a>)</li>
<li>Martin Senftleben, University of Amsterdam (<a href="http://www.rechten.vu.nl/en/about-the-faculty/faculty/faculty/dutch-private-law/senftleben-m-r-f.asp">Bio</a>)</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6:00</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6:15</td>
<td>Keynote: Sunil Abraham, Center for the Internet and Society – India (<a href="https://cis-india.org/about/people/our-team">Bio</a>)
<ul>
<li><i id="__mceDel"> <i>Users Rights and Innovation in the ICT Industries in India</i></i></li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7:00</td>
<td>Reception (Room 600)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/pijip-september-26-2013-the-law-and-economics-of-copyright-users-rights'>https://cis-india.org/news/pijip-september-26-2013-the-law-and-economics-of-copyright-users-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2013-09-06T06:25:35ZNews ItemDisability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations
<b>In the year 2006, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conducted a study on different national approaches to copyright exception for persons with disabilities. Over 60 countries have an exception in their Copyright laws permitting conversion of works into accessible formats for the benefit of persons who cannot read print. The scope of the exception varies, in terms of the beneficiaries covered, formats permitted, restrictions on who can convert, etc.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On June 28, 2013 the Marrakesh Treaty was signed by 51 countries, to facilitate the creation of accessible copyrighted works for the disabled. The treaty, however, will not come into force until 20 countries ratify it. India, in June 2013, became the first country to ratify it. In this report, we aim to provide an update to the 2006 WIPO study, whereby all relevant details, including whether the countries are signatories to the Treaty are given in a simplified manner. This is to ensure that the information is readily accessible in a simple and comprehensive table for all readers.</p>
<p>A consolidated list of copyright legislations can be found <a href="http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/index.jsp?tab=1" target="_blank">here</a>. See table below for the country-wise exceptions.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Country-wise Exceptions in Copyright Legislations</h3>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b> </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Legislation</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Scope</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Works Covered</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Formats covered</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Who can convert</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Marrakesh Treaty Signatory</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Ratified UNCRPD</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Armenia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 22 (h), Law on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the National Assembly of Armenia on 15 June 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who require Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work, except those created for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille and other special means for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Australia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 47A, 112, Part VB Division 3, 116A, The Copyright Act 1968 as amended up to 2014</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with print disability, persons who by reason of old age, disability or literary problems are unable to handle books or newspapers or to read or comprehend written material</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recordings of literary or dramatic works, published editions of literary or dramatic works,</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recordings, Braille, large print, photographic or electronic, sound broadcast</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>By body administering an institution assisting persons with print disability, persons holding print disability radio license</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Austria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 42d, Federal law on Copyrights on Literary and Artistic works and Related Rights as amended up to 2011</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Covers all 'disabled persons' however does not define who is disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works, which are not possible or it is substantially difficult on account of their disability for the person to access a published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any suitable format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Azerbaijan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19.6, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1996 as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed works, except those created especially for the purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Belarus</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1998 as amended up to 2003</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work other than those created especially for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Belize</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 83, The Copyright Act, as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who are hearing-impaired, or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Television broadcasts or cable programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise adapted for the special needs of the persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A body designated for the purposes of this section by order of the Minister</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Brazil</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 46.I(d) of Law No 9610 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 1998</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, artistic or scientific works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or by means of another process using a medium designed for visually handicapped users</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Bulgaria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 24(1)10, 24(2), 23, 25a(1) and 25a(2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1993 as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and analogous specialized formats</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works, except computer programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other analogous formats</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Cameroon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 29(1)(g) of Law No. 2000/011 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works published with the authorization of the author</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Limited to Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Canada</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 32, Copyright Act, 1985 as amended up to 203</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with 'perceptual disability' and 'print disability' which<i> </i>is any disability which prevents or inhibits a person from reading or hearing a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work in its original format, including disability resulting from (a) severe or total impairment of sight or hearing or the inability to focus or move one's eyes; (b) the inability to hold or manipulate a book; (c) an impairment relating to comprehension.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, musical or dramatic works other than cinematographic work and not where the work is commercially available in a format specially designed to meet the needs of a person with the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats specially designed for persons with a perceptual disability, but not large print books</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any person at the request of a person with a perceptual disability or non-profit organization acting for his or her benefit</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>China</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 22(12), Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published work and additionally applies to the rights of publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Croatia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 80, 86, 98, Copyright and Related Rights Act as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format required by the disabled person</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Czech Republic</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 38, Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works with the exception of computer programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Reproduction to the extent required by the specific disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Denmark</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The Consolidated Act on Copyright, 2010</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind, visually impaired and deaf people, people suffering from a speech impediment and people unable to read printed text on account of a handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format specifically intended for those with such disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Dominican Republic</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 44, Law No 65-00, on Copyright of 21 August 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sightless persons and persons with other physical disabilities. However, only public communication if permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Scientific, literary or artistic works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No reproduction is permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>El Salvador</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 44 (d) of the Law on Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property, 1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and other handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>All works of the mind including literary, scientific, artistic, musical and dramatic works. However, mere public communication is permitted and not reproduction</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Reproduction is not permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Estonia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 19, Copyright Act (as amended up to 2000)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works made available to the public except those created especially for the blind.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille and other technical formats for the benefits of blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Fiji</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 185, Copyright Act 1999</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>People who are hearing-impaired or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Television broadcasts or cable programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise modified for the benefits of the beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Finland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 17, Copyright Act, 1961, as amended up to 2010</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with visual impairments and others who, owing to the disability or illness cannot use the works in the ordinary manner</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published literary or musical works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Text readable by visually impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions. However, sound recordings can be made only by institutions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>France</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles L122-5 and L331-5 to L331-21 of the Intellectual Property Code as amended up to August 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Person with motor, psychological, hearing or visual disability which must be at least 50 % assessed against specified relevant standards</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format used to the extent consistent with the nature of the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons or organizations listed by the relevant administrative authority</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Gabon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 33, Copyright Law</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with a disability including people who are visually impaired</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Limited to formats for "welfare purposes"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Georgia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 23, Law of Georgia on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille or other means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work other than those specially created for use by blind people.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Relief dotted print or other special means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Germany</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles, 45a, 63 and 95b, Copyright Act, 1965 as amended up to 2013)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>All works, except where the accessible version is available</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats accessible to the disabled persons to the extent required</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Greece</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 28A, 28C and 66A, Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters (as amended up to 2003)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and deaf-mute persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the disability and specifically required by the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Hungary</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 41(1) and 33, Act No LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (as amended up to 2007)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats designed specially to benefit the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Iceland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19, Copyright Act No 73 of 1972, as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and visually impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published literary or musical works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 52, Copyright Act 1957 (as amended up to 2012)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any accessible format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any person to facilitate persons with disability to access works including sharing with any person with disability and any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilitites</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Indonesia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 15d, Law of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Copyright, No 19 2002</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Scientific, artistic and literary works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Ireland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 104, 106, 374, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with physical or mental disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Modifications permitted to meet the special needs of a the disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Israel</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 28A, Copyright Law, 2007</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formatted to meet the needs of the disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any Not for Profit Institution where one of its objectives or primary activities is education, training or welfare of persons with disabilities, A Government Office, or An educational institution determined by the Minister</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Italy</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles <i>71 bis</i> and <i>71 nonies</i> of the Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability in the categories as defined by Ministerial decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the disability and only to that extent</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions, but could be set by Ministerial decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Japan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 33bis, 37, 48, Copyright Law as amended up to 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons and visually handicapped children/pupils</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works that have been lawfully disclosed and school textbooks (<i>for children)</i></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille, including electronically recorded Braille and Large prints</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found, Braille libraries and other establishments designated by the Cabinet order for sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Kazakhstan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19 and 16, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996, as amended up to 2012</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and persons requiring Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work, except those created in special formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Republic of Korea</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 30 and 34, Copyright Act No 3916, 1989 as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works that have been made public</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions for Braille, sound recordings can be used only at facilities established for the promotion of the blind as prescribed by Presidential Decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Kyrgyztan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19, 16, Law on Copyright and related Rights,1998 as amended up to 2014</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, except those created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or those produced by other means for blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Latvia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 19, 22, Copyright Law as amended up to 2011)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work published lawfully</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats that permit a visually or hearing impaired person to use it</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Organizations for the visually and hearing impaired and libraries providing services to such people are permitted to undertake this activity. However, other persons are not barred other than by limitations imposed</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Lithuania</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 25, Law on Copyright and Related Rights No VIII-1185, 1999 (As amended up to 2014)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works other than those created in special formats for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In any format that would benefit the persons having hearing or visual impairment</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Macau</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 65, 66, Decree-Law No 43/99/M of 1999</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and those who require Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works and lectures by Professors</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or any other format for blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions on making copies on Braille. However, fixation of lectures may be done only by the Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Malaysia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 13, Copyright Act 1987 as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who require Braille copies and persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any published work, and television broadcasts</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies and copies with subtitles or other modifications for the end beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies can be used only by the Braille MAB Library, and for television broadcasts, bodies and institutions which the Minister has prescribed</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Republic of Moldova</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 22, Law of Republic of Moldova on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works except those created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille only</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Mongolia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 24, Law of Mongolia on Copyright as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format that can be used by the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Netherlands</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 15i, 15c and 29a of the Copyright Act 1912 as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped individuals</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, scientific and artistic works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the handicap and necessary because of the handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>New Zealand</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 69, 89, Copyright Act 1994 (version 2014)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A person with a print disability [as defined in Article 69(4)] and persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or physically or mentally handicapped in any other way</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For print disabled, literary or dramatic works and for others, television broadcasts or cable programmes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or copies with other modifications for the special needs of the people, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A body prescribed by regulations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Nicaragua</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 32 (2), Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1999 (version 2001)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually impaired people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies made using the Braille system or any other format necessary</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Nigeria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Second Schedule, Copyright Act, 1988 No 47 (No. 42) (version 2004)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people for Braille copies, disabled persons for sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For sound recordings, only institutions or establishments approved by the Government for the promotion of the welfare of other disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Norway</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 17, 17a, 17b, 11, 53b and 12, of Act No 2, relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Etc (version 2005)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and other disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any published literary, scientific, musical work, film and, any published film or picture or transmitted broadcast program , except any work which has been made specifically for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For blind persons, any form other than a sound fixation and for the disabled, a fixation on a device that can reproduce the fixation.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions for the Blind, however, for the disabled, only organizations and libraries as specified by the Kind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Panama</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 47 of Law No. 15 of 8 August 1994</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and other handicapped persons.</p>
<p>Mere public communication is permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No reproduction permitted, hence no accessible formats can be made</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions founds</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Paraguay</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 39 and 45, Law No. 1328/98 on Copyright and Related Rights</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another specific form for the use of visually handicapped</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Peru</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 43, 50 of Copyright Act- Legislative Decree No 822 of 23 April 1996</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another specific format to assist blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Poland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 33<sup>1</sup>, 34, 35, Act on Copyright and Related Rights, 1994</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disseminated works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions on the format; any format which is required by the disabled shall be permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Portugal</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 75, 76, 80, 221, 222 of Copyright and Related Right as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people and people with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another system for blind people, and formats directly related to the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Russian Federation</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19, 16 of Law of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons needing access to Braille copies or other formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, other than those specifically created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or other special formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Singapore</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 54, 261D of Copyright Act (Chapter 63) version 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped readers</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary or dramatic works that have been published, and where the format has been published, it can be made under the exception that it is not possible to obtain the published copy in a reasonable time and at an ordinary commercial price</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recording, Braille copies, large print or photographic version</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Body administering an institution assisting handicapped readers, which includes educational institutions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Slovakia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 29, 25, 38 of Copyright Act, 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats used exclusively for the needs of the handicapped people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Slovenia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 47a, 46, 166c, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 1995 (amended up to 2001)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work that is not available in the desired format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats used directly to assist the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Spain</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 31, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, (amended up to 2011)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille system or another specific method</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Sweden</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 17, 52f of Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary and musical works and works of visual art</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats that can be used to assist the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions, except for communication of any work to those with a disability, and making, distribution and communication of a sound recording, when the activity can only be undertaken by libraries and organizations as decided by the Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Ukraine</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 21, 15, Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2011</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille only</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Uzbekistan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 28, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996 (2011 version)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, except those specially created for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Relief-dot font or other means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 31A to 31F, 74, 28, and 296ZE of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (2003 version)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually impaired people, people who are deaf or hard of hearing or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or published editions, which a visually impaired person has in their lawful possession and which are not accessible to him because of the impairment, television broadcasts, including those delivered by a cable</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any accessible copy, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs of the beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) For making accessible copies of works that the person have in their possession, only the visually impaired or someone on his behalf; (ii) for making copies by approved bodies for supply to visually impaired persons, an approved body which is an educational establishment and (iii) for making subtitled or modified copies of broadcasts for supply, only a designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>United States of America</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 121, 110 and 1201 of United States Code -Title 17, as amended up to 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons, or other persons with disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) For making specialized formats by authorized entities, previously published, non dramatic literary work, but not standardized, secure or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or computer programs, other than the portions in conventional human language that are displayed to users when the program is in use</p>
<p>(ii) For publishers, instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools</p>
<p>(iii) For transmission of performances of literary works to blind/handicapped persons, any literary work which has been published at least ten years prior to the date of performance</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) Specialized formats, i.e, Braille, audio or digital texts, exclusively for use by blind people or people with other disabilities</p>
<p>(ii) Copies of electronic files as described in legislation relating to individuals with disabilities. The copies must be used solely for reproduction and distribution of the contents in specialized formats</p>
<p>(iii) Copies are not permitted except transmissions specifically designed for and primarily directed to blind or other handicapped persons who are unable to read normal printed material as a result of their handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) Activity must be by an authorized entity, which is non-profit organization or governmental agency that has primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind/persons with disabilities</p>
<p>(ii) Activity by publisher of print instructional materials</p>
<p>(iii) The transmission must be made through the facilities of a governmental body, a non-commercial educational broadcast station, a radio sub carrier authorization or a cable system</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations</a>
</p>
No publisherrishiCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2015-01-12T02:14:53ZBlog EntryUS Copyright law faces constitutional challenge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge
<b>In a major international development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit to strike down the provisions on Digital Rights Management(DRM) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In this post, I discuss DRMs, the EFF lawsuit, and then draw upon the differences between the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.</b>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Originally published by <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/2016/08/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Spicy IP</a> on August 5, 2016. <i>You may read EFF’s lawsuit <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">here</a>. <br /></i></p>
<hr />
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b><i>Decoding</i> DRM </b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">If you own a Netflix account and travel a lot, you may have been denied access to some TV shows depending on the country you logged in from. While that restriction can perhaps be gotten around by using VPNs, there exist other technological measures that prevent you from fixing your own automobile to sharing/making copies of an e-book that you supposedly bought. Such technological protection measures are commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM). These go back twenty years, and it was in 1996 when the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System">first DRM</a> appeared in the form of geo-access restrictions on DVD play.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Soon thereafter, it became de rigeur for businesses dealing in IP to apply all kinds of DRMs to their products. It was largely an embarrassing and a pointless saga of implementing software embedded restrictions to stem piracy (remember the <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/08/new-exemptions-to-dmca-anti.html">Sony BMG rootkit fiasco</a>?), given how blatantly they were discovered and circumvented. And now since technology is beginning to dwell even in our shoes, DRMs have been slapped onto these as well. So if you discover a bug causing a miscalculation in your step count, you are not only prohibited under law from probing the code and fixing it yourself, but you also may get jailed for doing so. Imagine such how such prohibition impacts and limits our daily lives and the work of professional researchers.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><span>Clearly, DRM is not just a mere trifle to be brushed aside via smarter code– its ramifications go much farther. DRMs come with the problem of masking vulnerabilities, </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-issues-with-drm">compromised security of the device and us</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-issues-with-drm">er-privacy</a><span>, and trampled consumer rights, fair use and free speech. Further, the poor design of </span><a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/guest-post-note-on-proposed-amendments.html">DRMs makes them unable to distinguish between illegal use and fair-use.</a><span> Progressive c</span><a href="http://spicyip.com/2008/06/guest-post-rise-and-fall-of-drm.html">utting down of users’ rights to store, reproduce, distribute media</a><span> has become especially problematic for developing countries because of our greater dependence on free-er terms for sale, lending and donation. On the other hand, DRMs continue to become more ubiquitous(could be </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/call-security-community-w3cs-drm-must-be-investigated">incorporated</a><span> in the HTML 5 standard soon).</span></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><b>However, in an exciting development, the first major legal battle to kill DRM has begun!</b></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Because finally in an unprecedented move, a constitutional challenge has been lodged in the US against DRM provisions, on the grounds that they restrict free speech and fair-use of copyright materials (the fair-use doctrine allows copyright law to co-exist with the first amendment). The <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">complaint</a> has been filed by EFF on behalf of Matthew Green (a security researcher) and Andrew “bunnie” Huang (a technologist)</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..</b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Sections 1201-1205 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lay down provisions relating to circumvention of DRM. Uniquely, the DMCA vests power in the Librarian of Congress to periodically enact rules granting exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions to legitimate non-infringing use of works (known as <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">DMCA Rulemaking</a>). It was under this particular instance of rulemaking in 2015, wherein the Librarian failed to grant an exemption for “<a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">…speech using clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formats and devices, and for certain forms of security research</a>.” The rejection triggered the challenge against ‘Rulemaking’, ‘anti-circumvention’ and ‘anti-trafficking’ provisions of the DMCA, namely sections 1201(a), 1203, and 1204 . (This exemption was applied for by EFF, which <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">has been seeking (and been granted) exemptions since 2003.</a>)</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">In fact, universally, DRM provisions pose questions of free speech, consumer rights, privacy and copyright law. In the following section I will examine and compare the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act</b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on DRM are based in sections 2(xa), 65A and 65B, which were introduced through the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The sections define ‘Rights Management Information’, provide for ‘Protection of technological measures’ and ‘Protection of Rights Management Information’, respectively. It must be noted that the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was the first instrument to conceive rules on DRM protection (Articles 11, 12). US was the first country to import WCT provisions into its copyright law via DMCA, which even went above the WCT standards. Soon, <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/drms-in-draft-copyright-amendments.html">Hollywood-backed USTR wanted India to follow suit</a>, and the provisions were queued up for an amendment to India’s copyright law. Please note that India is NOT a party to the WCT, and was under no obligation to enact laws on DRMs. Nevertheless, the Indian provisions with <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/drms-in-draft-copyright-amendments.html">some changes and added limitations</a> were loosely lifted from the equivalent WCT articles.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It is worth noting that the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">Indian DRM provisions have better safeguards than the DMCA provisions</a>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">1) The Indian provisions (s. <a href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">65A+ 65B</a>) do not make building and distribution of circumvention tools illegal. Only the act of circumvention attracts criminal liability. However, there is a duty on the person facilitating circumvention for another person to maintain a record of the same, including the purpose for which the facilitation occurred. The purpose should not be expressly prohibited under the Copyright Act, 1957.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Regardless, being criminally liable for circumventing DRM is a major threat to small businesses and developers. In one instance, when some I<a href="http://cis-india.org/news/digital-wrongs">ndian developers had built an open source software “PlayFair”</a> to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM, they were threatened with legal action under the US’ DMCA. Despite the DMCA having no jurisdiction in India, the developers shut shop.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">2) Clauses 65A(1) and 65A(2)(a) confine violation of technological protection measures to rights enumerated in the act, only. This means that the section does not restrict circumventions which attempt to get access to the underlying work.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While India has not seen major challenges to this provision, in 2013 the Delhi High Court injuncted persons from jailbreaking into Sony Playstations. Amlan <a href="http://spicyip.com/2013/02/jailbreaking-sony-playstations-to-be.html">analysed the order</a> and questioned it in terms of the Court finding the act of ‘modifying the playstation without Sony’s consent’ illegal. Because, if you read section 65A (emphasis supplied is mine):</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>65A. Protection of Technological Measures</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(1) Any person who <b>circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act,</b> 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.</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>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</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(c) conducting any lawful investigation; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(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</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(e) operator; or [sic]</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.</i></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Clause (1) clearly states that the law is only applicable to such technological protection measures applied to protect any of the rights conferred by the copyright act. Which raises the questions of which rights are affected when OS of the playstation is modified, and how does the modification amount to copyright infringement? One may perhaps draw that the Court in this order placed the ‘consent’ of Sony above the law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">3) S. 65A(2) safeguards certain acts which also exist as exceptions granted in the Copyright Act. These enumerated acts may be performed without attracting liability: for instance, circumventions for purposes of encryption research, security testing, lawful investigation, evading surveillance by DRM are kosher. Note that s. 65A(2)(g) permits circumvention in the interest of national security.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><i>(For a detailed exegesis of these provisions, please read <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">this piece</a>.) </i></p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>A look at the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cannot-pass-constitutional-scrutiny">draconian DMCA provisions</a></b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">As I mentioned earlier, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2281/text/enr">DMCA provisions on DRMs</a> are much stricter compared to the Indian copyright act. Both circumvention(s. 1201(a)(1)), and building and distribution of circumvention tools(s. 1201(a)(2)) are illegal and punishable. The DMCA also meticulously defines circumvention, in terms of “circumventing a technological measure” and “circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure.”</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-years-under-dmca">More alarmingly, these provisions envisage access controls as well as use controls</a>. So a person decrypting a DVD to gain access to the work would be held liable for infringement (unlike in India where only the act of copying or modifying the work would trigger infringement). It is also worth noting that there is no clause stating that circumvention (and tools) of only those DRMs is illegal when the DRMs protect rights conferred under the DMCA.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While s. 1201(c) states that the section shall not affect “…rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including <b>fair-use</b>…” Further, there do exist exemptions to clauses(a)(1) and (2):</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions; and</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Exemption for the purposes of law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities, reverse engineering (solely for the purposes of achieving interoperability), restricting internet access to minors, protecting personally identifiable information, security testing, encryption research, etc.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While the list seems to permit circumvention for a wide range of purposes and fair-use, <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">the vague and narrow language</a> has failed the implementation of these exemptions. EFF l<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-years-under-dmca">ists a bunch of these instances</a> where the DRM provisions have been not necessarily used against pirates, but also scientists, consumers and legit competitors.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Further, the DMCA left it entirely to the US copyright agencies to carve exemptions for non-infringing uses of works on a triennial basis. This <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">rulemaking procedure has received heavy criticism</a>, and as a result of the 2015 rejection the Library of the Congress finds itself in a legal soup.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><b>Finally</b>, the <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">EFF lawsuit</a> also illustrates the violations of the plaintiffs rights to free speech and fair-use, as a direct result of the provisions and the Rulemaking process. Armed with a strong case, and as Cory Doctorow puts it, we may witness the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/cory-doctorow-and-eff-eim-to-eradicate-drm-in-our-lifetime/">eradication of DRM in our lifetime</a>. And I will be following the developments closely and keep our readers updated.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-08-11T13:28:13ZBlog EntryAccessing pirated content might lead to prison term & Rs 3-lakh fine
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine
<b>India puts onus of downloading and viewing pirated content on individuals.
</b>
<p align="justify">The article by Alnoor Peermohammed was published in the <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-rs-3-lakh-fine-116082201042_1.html">Business Standard</a> on August 22, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr align="justify" size="2" width="100%" />
<div align="justify">The central government is putting the onus of downloading and viewing of copyrighted content from sites it has blocked (with the help of internet service providers) on users.</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">Visiting torrent (a particular type of files) websites while on Tata Communications’ network recently had users being shown a message that viewing or downloading content on those sites could land them in prison for up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh.</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">“There is not enough room in our prisons to keep these infringers and enough time in our courts to try them. It might sound very exciting as a message to put out but, essentially, they’re trying to scare people into good behaviour,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at research firm Centre for Internet and Society.
<div id="div-gpt-ad-1466593210966-0"></div>
</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">There has been no change to the Copyright Act of 1957 or the Information Technology Act of 2000 for the updated notice being shown to users upon visiting blocked sites. Under these provisions, visiting a site, which is blocked is not illegal, unless it is child pornography.<br /> <br />
<div>“Copyright infringement happens all the time and even in developed countries, the rates are very high. Crackdowns on individuals and consumers are never going to solve the problem,” added Abraham.</div>
<div>Experts say the most the government could do is prosecute a couple of people and make examples of them, to dissuade others. This practice is followed globally. There are no examples, though, in India of prosecution for copyright infringement of online content.<br /> <br />
<div>The recent alteration of the statement seen by users on Tata networks was done on the directives of the Bombay High Court, after the company appealed that showing individual messages for why each website was blocked was not feasible. The resulting message sparked media frenzy that visitors of blocked websites could now be imprisoned.</div>
<div>Other media reports revealed that the recent blocking of websites by internet service providers was prompted by court orders to prevent piracy of <i>Dishoom</i>, the Bollywood movie. <br /> <br /> <span class="p-content">Globally, there’s been a move to clamp on torrent websites which host pirated content, aided by large information technology entities such as Apple or Facebook. Last month, the US authorities arrested Kickass Torrents’ founder, Arten Vaulin, and blocked all the domains of the website, only to have it resurface a day later.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActInternet GovernanceInformation TechnologyCopyright2016-08-23T02:47:52ZNews Item3 Copyright Tips for Students and Educators
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators
<b>Copyright is a really complicated topic, and when it comes to online use of creative works, accidentally crossing the line between fair use and a copyright violation is easy. How do you know what is copyrighted? Recently Frederico Morando (Creative Commons, Italy) and I presented a training session on understanding copyright policies at Wikimania 2016, which was originally proposed by Wikipedian User:Jim Carter. We covered topics such as fundamentals of copyright, exclusive rights, Berne convention, copyleft, Creative Commons licenses, Public Domain, fair use, and copyfraud.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post was <a class="external-link" href="https://opensource.com/education/16/8/3-copyright-tips-students-and-educators">published by Opensource.com</a> on August 16, 2016. This got mentioned in Wikipedia's newsletter "<a class="external-link" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single#In_brief">The Signpost</a>". This was mirrored by Wiki Edu on October 5, 2016. The post republished can be <a class="external-link" href="https://wikiedu.org/blog/2016/10/05/blurry-copyright-three-tips-for-students-and-educators/">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this article, I'll look at three copyright tips to keep in mind when you're thinking about using content—even for academic purposes— you find online.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">1. Most of what you find on the Internet is copyrighted.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Except content that clearly indicates the work is released under a free license, or that the copyright has lapsed and the work is in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain" target="_blank">Public Domain</a>, you can assume content is not freely/liberally licensed. A few popular free and <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" target="_blank">open licenses</a> include GNU General Public License (GPL), BSD licenses, Apache License, Mozilla Public License, and SIL Open Font License. If a work mentions the license, usually the license is explained or links to terms for using the work. Spending a little time to find out what license the work is under beats spending time and money on a copyright infringement case later.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">2. Fair use can be your friend, but not always.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" target="_blank">Fair use</a> means you might be permitted to make limited use of a copyrighted work without prior permission from the copyright holder. The fair use policy varies from country to country. As explained in the <a href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/" target="_blank">Stanford University Libraries site</a>, commentary/quotes and criticism, and parody are cases that often fall under fair use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Wikipedia article images related to recent music albums, movies, and even people who are deceased are used under fair use policy. Click on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.jpg" target="_blank">a recent movie poster</a> appearing in a Wikipedia article and check the copyright section for an example explanation of why the use on Wikipedia qualifies as fair use.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Example Wikipedia explanation for fair use of an image." class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Example image. an of use fair for explanation Wikipedia attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Example attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320866 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="186" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/poster-license.png" title="Example Wikipedia explanation for fair use of an image." width="520" /></p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><sup>Example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia explanation</a> for fair use of an image.</sup></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fair use also gives some freedom to scholars to use copyrighted work for academic research. To be in a safe side if you are not sure your use falls under "fair use," reach out to the copyright holder and get formal permission before using their work.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">3. search.creativecommons.org helps streamline Creative Commons content searches.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Where do you go to search for images, illustrations, and other content with Creative Commons licensing? Most images turned up using a search engine are copyrighted and not licensed liberally, for example. A better way to search is using <a href="http://search.creativecommons.org/" target="_blank">search.creativecommons.org</a>.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Searching with search.creativecommons.org" class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Searching search.creativecommons.org with attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Searching attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320871 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="288" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/search_creative-commons.png" title="Searching with search.creativecommons.org" width="520" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You can choose Creative Commons-licensed content from several sites, such as Flickr, Google Images, Wikimedia Commons, and Europeana. You can also specify whether you want to use the content for commercial purposes, or to modify, adapt, and build upon work.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Squirrel image cc by 2.0" class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Squirrel 2.0 by cc image attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Squirrel attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320876 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="345" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/squirrel.png" title="Squirrel image cc by 2.0" width="520" /></p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><sup>Image credit <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thartz00/4848125586/in/photolist-pJ1ZUb-pHZeyg-bHBqWK-qUPGF2-8p2py2-8omhkX-8ESRmV-8opUQb-8omCTF-8Ci9uT-8EW2Z1-aCzjww-8omsBg-egUVB6-8opD3b-pjwoda-egUUB4-5QjZw-afNR9W-8FCKKW-8ESJ1X-8opf3u-8omu6r-8opXVG-rksQLR-iiEtfF-8Fzkvi-kjQiui-6p3zqy-9vDtad-7ThZA-8oppdY-9cuAnT-8CmfVo-98RCtP-8EW259-8ESNoa-8EW1GW-8EVVLW-8ESMRa-8opfg7-8EVV73-8omdHk-8EVUMf-8ESS5x-8ESPaT-8ESSs8-9A3fb1-8omEcp-8EW1o1" target="_blank">likeaduck</a>. <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a> </sup></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note that you still will need to check which Creative Commons license the content uses. As explained in <a href="https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-2">an article by Richard Fontana</a>:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The Creative Commons suite includes licenses that implement various policies. Some, like CC BY and CC BY-SA, are normatively consistent with corresponding permissive and copyleft families of free software licenses. Others, however, particularly its “NC” (no commercial use) and “ND” (no derivative works) licenses, are in conflict with basic principles of free software and free culture. I am not alone in lamenting the application of the Creative Commons umbrella brand to cover licenses with such disparate qualities. One consequence has been a general confusing dilution of the meaning of “openness” in the context of cultural works. A more specific problem is the evidence of confusion on the part of content authors interested in applying Creative Commons licenses to their works, and resulting confusion by those interested in making use of such works. Too often a work is labeled as being licensed under “a Creative Commons license”, without specifying accurately, or specifying at all, which free or nonfree policy the author sought to apply.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If you still cannot find content—images, for example—with free licenses, but you find copyrighted content that fits your academic need, you can reach out to the content creator or copyright holder for permission. Often copyright holders allow usage of their work for non-commercial purposes, such as academic research and publication.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Do you have other sources you recommend for finding Creative Commons or Public Domain content? Let us know about your favorite resources in the comments.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaWikipediaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-10-07T00:42:06ZBlog EntryInterviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii
<b>The following is a second post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine how these developers responded to a question on legal protection for their works.</b>
<p align="justify">Before one can identify the solution, one must first identify the problem. Yet, in order to understand the problem, we must first understand the individuals involved and the how the problem affects these individuals. We hope that the findings of this preliminary research initiative will provide sufficient groundwork to understand the problems that exist and the different ways of approaching them before determining the most suitable prospective option in changes at the policy level. In this case, the individuals under study are the key contributors to the mobile app space within India; and the problem, being those faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem.</p>
<p align="justify">Previously, we looked at responses that were given across these mobile app developers interviewed which revealed how they orient notions of intellectual property within their practice and own products, specifically. Findings that were made included deductions that the majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. Just as well, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.</p>
<h3><b>Question 2: “How is your IP protected?”</b></h3>
<p align="justify">Next, we asked how they go about protecting their intellectual property to get a feel of who is protecting their apps and who is not. In asking this question, we hoped to learn how they go about protecting their work via legal means. Across their various responses, we observed many patterns and contradictions which are conveyed here with reference to comments made across interviews. It is important to note, however, that no causal relations intend for be argued for, only suggested correlations.</p>
<p><b>How they responded</b></p>
<p align="justify">When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many of our conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum</div>
<p align="justify">Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.</p>
<p><b>Reasons for IPR protection</b></p>
<p align="justify">If a startup or SME is bootstrapped with very little cash flow to begin with, what would provoke or inspire one to pursue the process of acquiring patent protection then? Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, <a class="external-link" href="http://levitum.in/">Levitum</a>, considers “the concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context.” So if this is the case, why did so many developers interviewed express an interest in IPR?</p>
<p align="justify">For those who did express interest in acquiring IPR as protection for their mobile app products, most seemed to express an interest in proving ownership over their work, or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.</p>
<p align="justify">Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explains his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which is currently pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”</p>
<p><b>Security not so easily attainable</b></p>
<div class="pullquote">“To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase."—John Paul, Plackal</div>
<p align="justify">However, for the startup especially, such protection does not come without a cost. For this reason, IPR is generally perceived as a gamble or tradeoff. It becomes a “question of priority between innovation and protection,” says Krishnaswamy. He continues in saying that, "I feel like even if it’s a great idea if someone else copies it, that’s some level of validation, but as a small company I’d rather be nimble in terms of how we build it up and get it to a certain point. We're trying to move fast and get something going, and then figure it out.” For Krishnaswamy and his team, securing a patent on an area where they feel they feel they have unique work is on their list of things to do, “It's something for us to revisit in the future.”</p>
<p align="justify">Paul explains that he and his team didn't always have IPR within reach: “To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase.” So what discourages startups from acquiring IPR, or simply seeking it out?</p>
<p align="justify">Patent attorney and IP consultant, Arjun Bala explains that “there is a lot to figure out. One aspect is filling it out, the other is how you write it so that it is easily granted and gives you the right sort of patent protection you are looking for. It is a very complex process that requires a lot of technical and legal expertise.” But even if one successfully manoeuvres the IPR system, is protection guaranteed?</p>
<p align="justify">Business Financial Strategist of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services, Jayant Tewari, illustrates the lack of security for the SME in the patent system, specifically, in saying, “Since a patent becomes public domain on filing, it can be effectively infringed based on the filing, even before it is granted.” Tewari continues in stressing the irrelevance of patents for SMEs due to the difficulty of enforcement: “the infringement will be adjudicated after 2 years at an immense cost to the SME patent-holder, who will go commercially belly-up due to the infringement. The regime does not protect the SME at all.”</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.” <br />—Samuel Mani, Mani Chengappa & Mathur</div>
<p><b>Nevermind enforcement...</b></p>
<p align="justify">Not only did our interviews shed light on the difficulty for a startup developer to apply for and be granted protection for their intellectual property, but also for the enforcement of such. Partnering Lawyer, Samuel Mani, of technology-focused law firm, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/www.mcmlaw.in" class="external-link">Mani Chengappa & Mathur</a>, speaks to us about the extensive procedure required to prove one's ownership over their IP: “To demonstrate copyright infringement, it requires going into millions of lines of code—unless it is the interface that is copied, which is easily visible.” Mani continues on the enforcement of patent protection by saying, “For a patent, the scope is even wider. It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”</p>
<p><b>Planting the initial seed</b></p>
<p align="justify">If there is arguably so much risk associated with applying for IPR protection, as well with enforcement, what specifically gets startups thinking about IPR initially within their practice? What experiences help them formulate their opinions on the matter, and which forms of IPR do they seek out?</p>
<p align="justify">Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too farfetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.</p>
<p align="justify">Cofounder and developer for a medium-sized software development enterprise, Anoop[1] explained that it wasn't until after the success of his enterprise's first application with $1 million in sales, that they started thinking about intellectual property and began to understand the value of it. This newly attained understanding, however, had not been enough to sufficiently equip his team with the knowledge to properly secure protection. For them, going after patent protection turned out to be a pursuit in vain.</p>
<p><b>Loss of faith in patents for SMEs</b></p>
<p align="justify">Anoop shares his disappointing experience after attempting to secure a patent for one of their mobile apps:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“We burned our fingers with patents. We spent a lot of money for a game we invented about 3 years ago. We had a law firm in the US to help us. We applied for it, and it went through 3-4 revisions, costing us $25-30,000. We finally closed the file when we could not get it due to an existing patent. We were really surprised." </i></p>
<p>After much disappointment from not being successful in their attempts to acquire patent protection, however, Anoop came out of the experience with a new outlook on patents and their role for SMEs:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“They're meant for large companies as means to bully your competitor. Only big players with the capacity to file for a patent as soon as it takes off benefit. The existing system doesn’t really work for startup companies. In India and anywhere. It’s an expensive process. If you’re a startup who’s just bootstrapping, there’s no guarantee that you will get it. It’s going to take you years.”</i></p>
<p align="justify"><b>Patent hype</b><br />Anoop is a prime example of developers in the startup space that fall victim to the promises of the patent system—only to be spat back out having exhausted their time and earnings. Already being aware of the probability for failure, Mani strongly discourages going after patent protection as a means of staying in the race. “With people spending millions on litigation, it is a recipe for disaster, especially considering the inherent delay of the Indian system.” For this reason, Mani stresses the importance of applying for the <i>right </i>protection.</p>
<p align="justify">Mani also suggests that the patent debate is driven by self-interest—people who simply make money off of application filing, regardless of whether or not the case succeeds. As a lawyer in the IT space, Mani claims to have turned away several prospective clients looking to patent their products when he insisted that such means of protection was not suitable for their product and interests...which brings us to an additional area of heated debate: the patentability of mobile apps.</p>
<p><b>Can mobile apps be patented?</b>[2]</p>
<p align="justify">One concept that seemed to receive contested responses across interviews is that of the patentability of mobile apps in the first place. When asked if mobile apps could be patented, former lawyer and startup founder, Vivek Durai, of HumblePaper, put it blatantly in responding, “absolutely not.” Others offered explanations of the Indian Patent Law nuances regarding when a mobile app is patentable and when one is not.</p>
<p align="justify">While consulting a SME with their own patent application, Bala explains their approach to ensure the mobile app's eligibility for patent protection, while providing some insight into the Indian patent system:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“One approach that we've taken to getting a patent in India is it's not just a pure software, but a software plus a hardware—as in it requires a specific hardware to function. If [the software] makes the hardware perform better, then it has a technical effect... In which case, we have a better chance of getting a patent in India. If your software is agnostic to hardware, however, it is much more difficult to receive a patent in India.” </i></p>
<p align="justify"><b>To patent or not to patent? (or any IPR for that matter)</b><br />To Tewari, on the other hand, the question of whether a mobile app can be patented is one entirely irrelevant. The question Tewari introduces into the developer's market strategy is not 'can I patent my app?' but instead, '<i>should </i>I do so?' In response to which; he would predominantly reply: <i>No</i>.</p>
<p align="justify">“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake,” argues Tewari. Alternatively, he suggests developers learn how to maneuver the laws, to prevent themselves from arriving at any sticky situations after unknowingly using another's code. To his clients who have mobile apps of their own, he advises to use an open source equivalent of a piece of code if they do not have the rights to it. Doing so will help keep infringement upon others at a minimal and prevent litigation against oneself.</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake."—Jayant Tewari, Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services</div>
<p align="justify">Not all developers interviewed, however, aspired to acquiring patent protection. In fact, some strongly opposed software patents, while expressing their appreciation for openness across the developer community. The other side to the IPR-Open Source dichotomy will be examined in the blog post to follow, after which, we will then look at accounts of infringement and threats of litigation across mobile app developers interviewed.</p>
<p><b>To recap<br /></b></p>
<p align="justify">By looking closely at the individual experiences across mobile app developers interviewed, we hope to begin to map out the mobile app ecosystem and the ways in which industry players engage with each other regarding their IPR. We also hope to begin to shed light on the different attitudes towards the law within one's practice, and how they shape their decisions related to their work. Only after doing so, may we be able to sufficiently assess how India's current IP laws govern this landscape.</p>
<p align="justify">Stay tuned for the next in this blog series! We hope that you may benefit from our findings in your own practice as a mobile app industry player or enthusiast, as well.</p>
<p align="justify"><b>Notes:</b><br />[1] <i>Name changed to protect the interviewee's identity</i></p>
<p align="justify">[2] In conducting interviews, our goal was not to test the legitimacy of responses, but instead, to map them out across various industry stakeholders. For this reason, this blog series will not be able to sufficiently respond to legal question, such as whether or not mobile apps are patentable to begin with. We intend to, however, undergo legal analysis of the Indian IPR system at its intersection with the mobile app space in India at a later stage in this project.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii</a>
</p>
No publishersamanthaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPervasive TechnologiesResearchPatents2014-08-19T03:51:39ZBlog EntryPreventive Detention for Copyright Violation: Karnataka Amends the 'Goondas' Act
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation
<b>Last week, the Government of Karnataka amended the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Gamblers Act, 1985 (“the Karnataka Goondas Act”). The Karnataka Goondas Act would now also apply to offences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. This article presents an overview on the various provisions of this law and discusses the potential impact of the amendment.</b>
<p>The<i> </i>blog post by Nehaa Chaudhari was first <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination">published on SpicyIP</a> on August 13, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Goondas and Goondas Acts</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Now used in ‘Indian English’ to mean a ‘<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/goonda">hired thug or bully</a>’, <i>goonda/gunda</i> seems to have Hindi/Urdu <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goondas">origins</a>. Incidentally, <i>thug</i> itself has Hindi <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thug">origins</a>, with its meaning encompassing a range of criminals from robbers to murderers to gangs of criminals, or <i>anti-social elements</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 1923, the <a href="http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/west_bengal/1923/1923WB1.pdf">Goondas Act</a> (India’s first) was enacted in Bengal. As per the Act, a <i>goonda</i><i> </i>residing within, habitually frequenting or visiting <i>Culcutta</i> either by herself/himself or as part of a gang, <i>committing/has committed/assisting in the commission of/is about to commit</i> a non-bailable offence against person or property, or the offence of criminal intimidation or causing breach of peace was liable for action under this legislation. Similar laws were soon enacted across the country, including the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act, 1946 of Madhya Pradesh, (later struck down as unconstitutional in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/882909/"><i>State of Madhya Pradesh </i>v.<i> Baldeo Prasa</i>d</a>), the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (see: an illustrative decision); the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (see: <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/510607/?formInput=goonda%20act%20doctypes:rajasthan">an illustrative decision</a>); The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (legislation prior to the 2004 amendment available here), and the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985, which was amended a few weeks ago.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While these legislations are broadly similar in their object – that of curtailing the criminal activities of ‘<i>goondas’</i> with provisions for removal as well as preventive detention, there is a variation in scope of the legislation. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu having extended the application of their respective Goondas Acts to a larger number of activities, including video piracy – which is the focus of this post.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Karnataka Goondas Act: What Remains and What has Changed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Scope and Definition</b><br />Enacted in 1985 to curb activities of “anti-social” elements, which have frequently disturbed the “even tempo of life” especially in “urban areas”, the Karnataka Goondas Act extended to ‘bootleggers, drug offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and slum grabbers’. Amongst others, <span>the 2014 amendment, which comes into effect “at once”, extends the scope of this legislation to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders”.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>As per the new amendment, Section 2(iv) of the Act first refers to a “digital offender” as ‘<i>when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a digital offender, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.</i><i> </i>An Explanation to Section 2 under Clause (f) specifies that a “digital offender” is <i>any person who knowingly or deliberately violates for commercial purposes any copyright law in relation to any book, music, film, software, artistic or scientific work and also includes any person who illegally enters through the identity of another user and illegally uses any computer or digital network for pecuniary gain for himself or for any other person or commits any of the offences specified under section 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75</i><i> </i>of the <a href="http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/itbill2000_0.pdf">Information Technology Act, 2000</a>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These mentioned sections (67-75 of the IT Act), refer to a variety of measures which penalize refusal to decrypt information, publication of obscene information, access or attempts to access a ‘protected’ computer or network, misrepresentation, and breach of confidentiality and privacy, as well as prescription of penalties for some offences. (See more <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/informationtechnologyact.html#67_Publishing_of_information_which_is_obscene_in_electronic_form" target="_blank">here</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The requirement that the action be committed for a “commercial purpose” has been eliminated in those instances where the offence is a violation of any of the listed sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000</span>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A “video or audio pirate” as defined under amended Section 2(xiii) is <i>when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a video or audio pirate habitually for commercial gain, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.</i><i> </i>The Explanation to Section 2 under amended Clause (o) states that a “video or audio pirate” <i>means a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences of infringement of copyright habitually for commercial gain, in relation to a cinematograph film or a record embodying any part of the soundtrack associated with the film, punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Explanation to amended Section 2 lays down the conditions in which<i> <i>public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely,</i><i> </i>viz. that <i>if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm, or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or grave or widespread danger to life or public health.</i></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Preventive Detention Orders</b><br />The amendment now means the State Government accordingly has the power to detain audio and video pirates and digital offenders, to prevent them from acting in a manner “prejudicial” to public order. In the first instance, such an order may not be for more than three months, it may be extended to a period of twelve months (Section 13), three months at a time, passed for the commission or the suspicion of commission of various offences, including copyright infringement, which under the Copyright Act, 1957 can only be determined by a court of law and is subject to subsequent appeals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2014 amendment also modifies Section 17, by virtue of which no order of detention can be made under the National Security Act, 1980 against any of the persons named under the Karnataka Goondas Act, including audio or video pirates or digital offenders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 8 requires grounds of detention to be disclosed to the detainees within five days of their detention, but not when it might not be in the public interest to do so.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Anomalies</b><br />This recent amendment to the Karnataka Goondas Act has resulted in anomalies. There are probably more; but two come to mind straight away.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><i>First</i>- preventive detention under the Karnataka Goondas Act means that the person arrested need not be produced before a magistrate immediately- there is a significantly long review process and detention may continue for a period of one year.</span></span> This is for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, under which persons arrested have to be produced before a magistrate. This is also for offences under the Copyright Act, 1957, under which a person may be arrested only when found guilty of an offence by the court, whereas the Karnataka Goondas Act allows arrest on mere suspicion. Further, persons detained under this legislation cannot secure bail.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><i>Second-</i><i> </i>the amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act negate the exceptions laid out under the Copyright Act, 1957</span>.</span> While a reading of the Karnataka Goondas Act suggests that copyright infringement for commercial purposes falls under the purview of the legislation (and therefore non -commercial uses are excluded), however, under its provisions, persons may be detained (preventively) on mere suspicion as well. <span><span>Therefore, even if a person were to be performing an activity permitted under the Copyright Act, 1957 (for instance, converting a coyrighted work into a machine readable format for the benefit of persons with disabilities), this person could be preventively detained</span></span> on the suspicion of engaging in this activity for commercial purposes.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Constitutional Validity</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Legislative Competence</b><br />The legislative competence of the Karnataka Government in amending the Karnataka Goondas Act to apply to audio and video pirates as well as to digital offenders is moot. <span><span><i>Prima facie,</i><i> </i>these amendments seem to be unconstitutional</span>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 246 read with List I (Union List) of the <a href="http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock2Pg.Rom8Fsss%2835%29.pdf">Seventh Schedule</a> of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws. Offences related to and committed by “video or audio pirates” or “digital offenders” as explained under the Karnataka Goondas Act are subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws, by virtue of the provisions relating to <i>posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication</i> (Entry 31 of List I) and <i>patents, inventions and designs; copyright; trade-marks and merchandise marks and merchandise marks</i> (Entry 49 of List I).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 246 read with List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the States have the authority to make laws. Seemingly, the Government of Karnataka may have chosen to make laws relating to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders” Entry I of List II, i.e., <i>public order</i>. It is my submission, however, that these offences would not fall under an understanding of “public order” and this amendment would still remain unconstitutional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom of Speech</b><br />Gautam Bhatia’s <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Goondagiri-Of-The-Goonda-Act/291593">article in the Outlook</a> (with a <a href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/karnatakas-amendments-to-the-goonda-act-violate-article-191a/">slightly modified version on his blog</a>) make out the case against the recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Bhatia argues that preventive detention under this legislation would be “prior restraint”, where government action prevents expression before it can take place, which is unconstitutional in most cases. He also argues that in order for free speech to be restricted on the grounds of “public order” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State is required to meet a high threshold, which the Karnataka Goondas Act does not meet.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Closing Comments</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The idea of introducing provisions to deal with online piracy and other ‘digital offences’ under the Goondas Act is not a new one. Mridula Chari <a href="http://scroll.in/article/673042/Why-many-states-are-using-the-1923-Goondas-Act-to-curb-digital-piracy">writes</a> that Tamil Nadu introduced such amendments to its Goondas Act in 2004 and Maharashtra in 2009, with Andhra Pradesh toying with the idea in 2010. She also writes that the Bengali and Punjabi music industries are making demands of their respective governments to introduce their own versions of the Goondas Acts and insert similar provisions. The Economic Times <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-30/news/52237723_1_goonda-act-offences-offenders">report</a> on these recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act also seems to suggest that these changes have been introduced for the protection of business interests. In contrast, in a <a href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/we-the-goondas/articleshow/39564603.cms">detailed report</a>, the Bangalore Mirror provides various illustrations of seemingly innocuous actions which may attract a draconian legislation, ranging from forwarding a song to a friend on WhatsApp to posting comments on social media sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The prospect of the protection of business interests with draconian legislations which are prima facie unconstitutional, aside from being ridiculous is deeply concerning. Widening the scope of these legislations to areas on which they have no constitutional authority to legislate, and introducing provisions with grave ramifications on fundamental rights, states in their continued and extended use of the Goondas Act are engaging in callous ill thought out actions with a deep disregard for their implications.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nehaa is a Nalsar Law graduate. She works on intellectual property/openness law and policy at the Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi. <i>[Note: Due to the examination of definitions in the Act, this post is considerably longer than our standard post. Though the whole post is recommended, readers in a hurry could skip directly to headings titled "Anomalies", "Constitutional Validity" and "Closing comments" for the juicy bits.]</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-08-13T12:46:51ZBlog EntryUpdate on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india
<b>Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021. </b>
<p>This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed
against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd,
Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.</p>
<p>In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to
stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it
allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to
remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did
not appear before the court.</p>
<p>Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is
at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy
organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to
not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of
the websites.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/rsidd120/status/1347227162395303939">One</a>
of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public
health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the <em>only</em>
access to educational and research materials for a big community of
Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have
become indispensable during the pandemic.</p>
<p>This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had <a href="http://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Publication_of_Literature.pdf">advocated</a>
for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as
recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/the-sti-policy-proposes-a-transformative-open-access-approach-for-india/">current draft</a>
science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the
monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and
their crippling impact in the Indian context.</p>
<p>They further argue that since the use of the websites is for
research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair
dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have
the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material
for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the
DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and
jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.</p>
<p>In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the
case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear
all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still
remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been
served properly yet.</p>
<p>At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement
(not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared
some thoughts on the case in an interview <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/interview-alexandra-elbakyan-sci-hub-elsevier-academic-publishing-open-access/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have
implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the
statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on
circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to
toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS
Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on
exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic
publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.</p>
<p>The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research
needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first
time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing
country.</p>
<p><em>Note:</em> For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this <a href="https://osf.io/6yph7/">document</a> prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.</p>
<p>Access the article on InfoJustice <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/42977">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeCourt Case2021-04-28T17:28:47ZBlog EntryZero Project Conference on Accessibility: Innovative Policies and Practices for Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014
<b>Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre convened an international conference at the United Nations Office in Vienna, Austria on February 27 and 28, 2014. Pranesh Prakash participated in the conference as a speaker. On February 27 he spoke on e-speak and on the following day (February 28) he spoke in a session on Copyright & the Marrakesh Treaty: Opportunities and Challenges.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The conference was attended by over 450 people. Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan had submitted two proposals, one on innovative practices (eSpeak) and one on innovative policy (India's copyright policy). Click on the links below to find more on these:</p>
<ol>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/India_eSpeak-Text-to-Speech-Engine.pdf">Affordable text-to-speech software from India</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Copyright-Amendment-Act_India.pdf">Copyright exception for accessible formats</a></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once again, the Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre have joined forces to convene an international conference in Vienna, Austria. On this occasion we aim to raise awareness about innovative solutions from around the world that advance accessibility for persons with disabilities. The conference seeks to strengthen the commitment of all stakeholders to promote, protect and advance the rights of persons with disabilities, and to improve their daily lives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the third Zero Project Conference on “Accesibility: Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices for Persons with Disabilities” parliamentarians, representatives of NGOs and foundations, academics, social entrepreneurs, disability rights activists and the business world will come together to discuss Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices and explore ways to promote and spread them to other countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Policies: Paving the Way</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Building on the success of our conferences in January 2012 and February 2013, at this Zero Project Conference, 15 Innovative Policies will be presented. They contain promising elements, have achieved identifiable improvements on the ground and point to a positive dynamic change that can be easily replicated in many countries around the world to advance the implementation of the Convention. They overcome conditions that act as barriers to the full exercise of rights by persons with disabilities and constitute the outcome of a multilevel research and selection process.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Practices: Crucial Steps</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project team has done extensive research worldwide on the most outstanding projects. The expert network that contributed their expertise in actively nominating and evaluating projects included more than 500 persons worldwide from 120 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These projects cover all areas of accessibility, including built environment, transport, products and services and ICT (information, communication and technology).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Be part of the Zero Project Network!</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project Conference gathers in Vienna the world’s leading representatives of the disability rights movement in order to facilitate a direct exchange of experiences. In this way the world’s most innovative and promising solutions are jointly identified, disseminated and further developed in order to make a noticeable improvement in the daily life and legal situation of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Join the discussion and explore possibilities and potentials on how global implementation of these exemplary solutions can be advanced!</p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/At-a-glance-barrierfree-FINAL2.doc">programme schedule</a></li>
<li>Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Speakerslist-ZPC-20141.pdf">speakers list</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014'>https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2014-03-06T08:44:00ZNews ItemPervasive Technologies Project Presentations at the 4th Global Congress, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015
<b>These are the presentations made by the members of the PT Project team at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 at National Law University, New Delhi.</b>
<ul>
<li><b>Nehaa Chaudhari: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-curious-case-of-the-cci-competition-law-and-sep-regulation-in-india" class="internal-link">The Curious Case of the CCI: Competition Law and SEP Regulation in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Amba Uttara Kak and Maggie Huang: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rethinking-music-copyright-management-in-the-age-of-digital-distribution-business-models-licensing-practices-and-copyright-institutions-in-india" class="internal-link">Rethinking Music Copyright Management in the Age of Digital Distribution: Business Models, Licensing Practices and Copyright Institutions in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Rohini Lakshané</b>:<b> <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-landscaping-in-the-sub-100-mobile-device-market-in-india" class="internal-link">Patent Landscaping in the sub-$100 Mobile Device Market in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Anubha Sinha: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ip-in-mobile-applications-development" class="internal-link">IP in Mobile Applications Development in India</a><br /></b></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-01-21T16:33:41ZBlog Entry