Centre for Internet and Society

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

nehaa — 2016-04-04T14:39:05Z

This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.

It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.

Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.

It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.

Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.

The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century.

Information Session on Broadcasting

Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.

Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.

Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.

Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.

John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.

He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.

However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.

Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.

Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.

George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.

Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.

Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.

Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.

She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.

Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.

Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.

Day 2: June 30, 2015

Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 ^nd SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.

Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29^th SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.

Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.

The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.

Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.

South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.

National Statements on General Principles

Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.

The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.

Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.

Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.

Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.

India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.

Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.

Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.

Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.

Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.

The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.

Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.

China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.

India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy.

Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.

The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content per se.

India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.

Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.

Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.

The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.

Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.

Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.

The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.

As per the EU, the definitions in Document SCCR 27/2 needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.

At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.

Defining 'broadcasting organizations'

The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.

Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.

Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.

Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.

Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.

Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.

South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.

Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.

The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.

The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.

Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.

The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.

Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.

Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.

Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.

Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.

The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.

The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.

India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.

Chair's Conclusions

At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.

Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.

Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.

Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.

The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Regional Statements on General Principles

Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.

Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28^th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.

Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.

Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.

Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.

China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.

The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.

Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.

Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.

India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.

Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.

Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.

The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.

Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.

South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.

The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.

Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.

Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.

Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.

Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.

Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.

Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.

Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.

Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.

Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.

Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.

Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.

Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.

Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.

Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.

The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Approach Forward

The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.

There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.

The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.

Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.

Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.

Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.

The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.

The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.

The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.

The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.

Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.

This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.

Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.

Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.

Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.

Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27^th SCCR.

The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.

South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.

Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.

The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.

The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.

Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.

Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.

Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.

Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.

Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.

The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.

The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.

Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US

Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.

Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.

Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.

Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.

Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.

The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.

China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.

The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.

After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.

Preservation

Non-Governmental Organizations

Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.

The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.

The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.

According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.

Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21^st century.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.

The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.

The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.

The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.

The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.

The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.

The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.

Member States

Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.

The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.

Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.

UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.

Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.

Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.

Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.

India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.

Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.

The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.

EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.

The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.

Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.

Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.

EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.

Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.

The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.

Day 1: July 3, 2015

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.

The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities
and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.

The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.

China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.

Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.

The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.

Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.

Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.

Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.

Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.

South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.

Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.

Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.

Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.

Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.

Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.

The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.

Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.

Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.

Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.

The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.

Chair's Summary

The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.

Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.

The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.

Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.

Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.

The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.

The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.

Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.

Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.

Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.

Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.

India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.

The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.

The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.

Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.

The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.

South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.

The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society

Competition Commission of India chairman's participation in Assocham conference raises conflict of interests

praskrishna — 2015-09-19T15:33:11Z

The chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and three of the six commission members are participating in a conference organised by Assocham and sponsored by private companies like Ericsson, trade associations and two legal firms specialising in intellectual property cases.

The article by Rema Nagarajan was published in the Times of India on August 6, 2015.

This, civil society organisations argue, raises issues of conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial body like CCI participating in a conference organised by private parties that have cases before the commission.

For instance, the event partner Ericsson is facing CCI investigations on matters related to standard essential patents (SEPs), one of the conference topics, and issues related to licensing of technologies on fair and equitable terms. The vice president and head of the legal section of Ericsson also has a speaking slot in the inaugural event. The brochure clearly states that the event partner on payment of Rs 5 lakh gets several privileges including a speaker's slot in the inaugural and business sections.

Several civil society organisations including Alternative Law Forum, Centre for Internet and Society and IT for Change from Bangalore, Knowledge Commons Collective, National Working Group on Patent Laws, and Software Freedom Law Centre from Delhi have written to the CCI protesting against its participation in the conference.

In their letter to CCI chairperson Ashok Chawla, they pointed out that the day-long conference titled Interface between Intellectual property (IP) and Competition Law, being held in a five star hotel on August 7, was focusing on issues being adjudicated by CCI. While Chawla is listed in the brochure as giving the inaugural address, CCI members GP Mittal and MS Sahoo are chairing two technical sessions and a third member SL Bunker is giving a special address at the valedictory function.

Other speakers include Rajiv Aggarwal, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, representatives of Google, Intel, Microsoft, the UK IP Office, senior advocates from three Indian law firms specialising in IP and representatives of international law firms and consultancy firms.

"It is a well-set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities, including one which is facing the investigation," stated the letter adding that all the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies were expected to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also perceived conflict of interest.

The civil society signatories pointed out that the event was not an academic event but a commercial one organised by a chamber of commerce along with the industry with clear commercial objectives. "The participation of CCI in the event would compromise the credibility and independence of CCI. Therefore, CCI as a guardian of public interest should not be subject to the lobbying efforts of IP owners. Providing privileged access to lobbying efforts of private enterprises like Ericsson, Qualcomm, Microsoft and Intel would cast a dark shadow on the neutrality of CCI," stated the letter requesting Chawla not to participate in the conference and to direct CCI members and CCI staff involved in investigations to avoid participation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/times-of-india-rema-nagarajan-august-6-2015-competition-commission-of-india-chairman-participation-in-assocham-conference-raises-conflict-of-interests

Open letter from CIS to PM Modi on Intellectual Property Rights issues on his Visit to US

praskrishna — 2015-09-24T02:48:32Z

Centre for Internet and Society, through its Policy Director Mr. Pranesh Prakash and Programme Officer Nehaa Chaudhari has addressed an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the intellectual property right issues concerning his visit to the United State of America in September, 2015.

The article by Apoorva Mandhani was published by LiveLaw on September 23, 2015. CIS Open Letter here.

The letter makes a two-fold request: first, that the Government of the USA be requested to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty for visually impaired persons and second, that the Indian Government should not enter into any negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

The letter relies on the statistics released by the World Blind Union, according to which 90% of all published material is not accessible to blind or print disabled people. The severity of the ‘book famine’, it says, was highlighted by India in its Closing Statement at the Diplomatic Conference convened to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty.

India was the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty in June, 2014. However, the Marrakesh Treaty will come into effect only after 20 Member States have ratified it or acceded to it. As per information available from the World Intellectual Property Organization, only 9 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty and USA is not one of it. The letter therefore requests Mr. Modi to request USA ratify the Marrakesh Treaty at the earliest.

It says, “The USA is home to some of the largest publishers of both academic and other/leisure material including Penguin Random House, Harper Collins, John Wiley & Sons, the RELX Group, McGraw-Hill Education, Scholastic and Cengage Learning to name a few. It accounts for a large volume of the world’s book and other print material export. The active participation of the USA through the ratification of the Marrakesh treaty is critical if the treaty is to be truly effective.”

With regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the letter communicates its concern regarding the secrecy of negotiations as well as the content of the chapter on intellectual property in the TPP.

Provisions sought to be imposed through the TPP mandate the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions in national laws, envisage possible extensions in term of protection on patents, restrict copyright exceptions and limitations, extend copyright protection terms and impose a higher liability on intermediaries. All these provisions, it says, “would be disastrous for an emerging economy such as India’s, which is a heavy user of intellectual property and not a heavy producer of the same.”

Highlighting CIS’s concerns, the letter requests that any engagement in TPP negotiations be preceded by national consultations on the same, soliciting input from various stakeholders with diverging interests, including academia, civil society, industry associations, large Indian corporations, small and medium enterprises and multi- national corporations, rights holders associations and other interest groups.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-law-apoorva-mandhani-september-23-2015-open-letter-from-cis-to-pm-modi-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-on-his-visit-to-us

Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey

rohini — 2017-03-29T04:03:03Z

Though India has the second-largest wireless subscriber base in the world, with more than 150 mobile device vendors, it has, until recently, remained relatively unaffected by the global smartphone wars. Over the past three years, however, a growing number of patent enforcement actions have been brought by multinational firms against domestic Indian producers. These actions, which have largely resulted in judgments favoring foreign patent holders, have given rise to a variety of proposals for addressing this situation.

In order to assess the potential impact of patents on the mobile device market in India, and to assist policy makers in formulating and implementing regulations affecting this market, we have conducted a comprehensive patent landscape analysis of the mobile device sector in India using public data relating to Indian patent ownership by technology type, nationality, and industry classification. Our results illuminate a number of important features of the Indian mobile device market, including the overwhelming prevalence of foreign patent holders, the rate at which foreign and domestic firms are obtaining patents, and how these patent holdings are likely to shape industrial dynamics in the Indian market for mobile devices, as well as the availability of low-cost mobile devices that can significantly enhance public health, agriculture, safety and economic development throughout India.

Download the full paper here

This paper was published by the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law on February 9, 2017.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patents-and-mobile-devices-in-india-an-empirical-survey

International Workshop on the Impact of the TRIPS Agreement on key sectors and its continuing relevance in the context of Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreements

praskrishna — 2015-10-28T02:57:33Z

On the occasion of 20 years of TRIPS Agreement, Centre for WTO Studies and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade is holding a workshop at Naland, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi on October 26 and 27, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker in the concluding session.

26^th October 2015 (Monday)
1000-1030 hrs	Registration
1030-1100 hrs 1030-1035hrs 1035-1045 hrs 1045-1055 hrs 1055-1100 hrs	Inaugural Session Welcome Remarks by Prof. Abhijit Das, Professor & Head, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Remarks by Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Inaugural Address by Shri Rajeev Kher, Former Commerce Secretary* Vote of Thanks by Ms Chandni Raina, Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
1100-1130 hrs Tea
1130-1330 hrs	Session 1 Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries and the growth of the Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreement The TRIPS Agreement placed on the developing countries onerous commitments with respect to protection of IPRs leading to a complete overhaul of their legislations. In the process more than half of the LDCs implemented their obligations under TRIPS even before the timelines set for them for compliance. Many developing countries have moved beyond TRIPS in their legal regimes. At the same time, further tightening of the regime as part of the FTA commitments is also a concern. The session discusses the manner in which countries met their commitments under TRIPS and the pulls and pressure that led to the TRIPS plus positions adopted by many. The plethora of FTAs and BITs has set additional commitments. The lessons learnt from recent arbitration proceeding and the positions adopted by countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand and India need to be examined. In the context of increasing pressure to harmonize enforcement standards, the reasonableness of this given the differing domestic priorities and developmental goals also needs to be studied. Questions for discussion: What were the pulls and pressures faced by the developing countries as they sought to comply with the TRIPS Agreement? Have the developing countries largely accepted TRIPS Plus commitments in their IPR regimes including on crucial issues such as public health and enforcement? What are the areas in which the FTA and RTAs are further enhancing protection? Are the developed countries seeking commitments that are even beyond the protection provided in their own jurisdiction? What are the various mechanisms of influence exercised by the developed countries? Chair: Shri Jayant Dasgupta, Former Permanent Representative of India to the WTO Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aries Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Shri R. Saha, Senior Advisor, Confederation of Indian Industry Shri KM Gopa Kumar, Third World Network
1330-1430 hrs	Lunch
1430-1630 hrs	Session 2 IP and Economic Development The reasonableness of high level IPR protection is often explained in the context of the beneficent impact it has on economic growth and development. The session will examine the strength, if any, of this correlation. Is the level of IP protection alone responsible for higher growth? What are the preconditions if any and empirical evidence on the level of development when this correlation really sets in? An important factor in development is the ability of countries to access technology and knowhow. What has been the experience of the developing countries in getting new technology? The session will discuss cross country studies with a view to gain clarity on this issue. Questions for discussion: Most developed countries have benefitted from fairly lax IPR regime, but the argument being given now for a high level of IPR protection is the beneficent impact it is likely to have on economic growth. Are the developed countries seeking to ‘kick away the ladder’ with which they climbed up to the top? Or is there a basis for the argument extended by them? What is the empirical evidence of the correlation of enhanced IPR protection on economic growth and development of a country? How important is IPR as a factor in economic growth? What is the evidence on the extent of technology transfer from the developed to the developing countries in the past two decade? Chair: Shri Sudhansh Pant, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Sunil Mani, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram Prof Sunil Kanwar, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University Mr Bobby Bedi, Film Producer and Director, Chairman, FICCI committee on Film and Industry
1630-1700 hrs	Tea

27^th October 2015 (Tuesday)
0945-1300 hrs	Session 3 TRIPS and Public Health Pharmaceutical and biotech sectors had the maximum divergence in IP protection regimes across countries prior to the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement was therefore a watershed for these sectors. However the flexibilities and subsequently the Doha declaration on TRIPS and Public Health have allowed countries to model the laws taking into account their developmental and societal objectives. Questions for discussion: Pharmaceuticals and the biotech sectors were possibly the most impacted by the TRIPS Agreement. However, the flexibilities allowed countries to take into account their public health concerns while formulating the Patent regimes. How did the Agreement impact access to medicines? Does this remain an unfinished agenda for the developed countries? What would be the areas where further action could be seen? Chair: Justice (retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Former Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Speakers: Mr D.G Shah, Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Partner, Corporate Law Group Ms Leena Menghaney, ‎Access Campaign India Co-ordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India* Prof Sudip Chaudhuri, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
1300-1400 hrs	Lunch
1400-1530 hrs	Concluding Session Shape of things to come The twenty years since the TRIPS Agreement came into existence, saw widespread changes in the legislative framework of most developing countries. While they grappled with fulfilling the obligations of the Agreement, the developed world has looked towards further strengthening these norms. The FTA/RTA’s with their tighter IPR chapters are but an outcome of this exercise. *Questions for discussion:* With FTAs/RTAs a norm, where are we headed? Will TRIPS lose its relevance? Or will the TRIPS be renegotiated? What are the new issues that will figure prominently in any prospective negotiations? What are the likely implications? Chair: Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Speakers: Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet Society Ms. R V Anuradha, Partner, Clarus Law Associates Ms Sanya Reid Smith, Legal Adviser, Third World Network
1530-1600	Tea

*- tbc

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements

Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T08:14:30Z

Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property charts the rise of the access to knowledge movement, a movement in which Open Society Foundations have played a key role. It maps the vast terrain of legal, cultural, and technical issues that activists and thinkers aligned to the movement negotiate every day.

Produced with the support of the Open Society Information Program, the book aims to make accessible a diverse range of subject matter, including access to medicines, software patents, food security and access to agricultural biotechnology, the public domain, remix culture, free expression, and semiotic democracy.

It features over 60 essays from leaders in the A2K movement, including influential thinkers and doers like Yochai Benkler, Peter Drahos, Lawrence Liang and James Love. The book also contains a chapter by Senior Information Program Manager Vera Franz, exploring the potential to redress the copyright balance of a new international instrument to mandate a minimum set of limitations and exceptions.

An electronic copy of the book has been made available for free download under a specially crafted Creative Commons (by-nc-nd) license which additionally allows for translations.

Date: November 2010
Source: Zone Books
Author: Gaëlle Krikorian and Amy Kapczynski, eds.

Contents include:

The Emergence of the Politics of A2K
The Conceptual Terrain of A2K
Strategies and Tactics of A2K
A2K in the Future: Visions and Scenarios

Need help downloading a file or playing a clip? Click here.

Download the CC-licensed electronic copy of the book. Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property (PDF Document - 7041K)

Link to the original here

NEW

The end of the twentieth century saw an explosive intrusion of intellectual property law into everyday life. Expansive copyright laws have been used to attack new forms of sharing and remixing facilitated by the Internet. International laws extending the patent rights of pharmaceutical companies have threatened the lives of millions of people around the world living with HIV/AIDS. For decades, governments have tightened the grip of intellectual property law at the bidding of information industries. Recently, a multitude of groups around the world have emerged to challenge this wave of enclosure with a new counterpolitics of “access to knowledge” or “A2K.” They include software programmers who take to the streets to attack software patents, AIDS activists who fight for generic medicines in poor countries, subsistence farmers who defend their right to food security and seeds, and college students who have created a new “free culture” movement to defend the digital commons. In this volume, Gaëlle Krikorian and Amy Kapczynski have created the first anthology of the A2K movement, mapping this emerging field of activism as a series of historical moments, strategies, and concepts. Intellectual property law has become not only a site of new forms of transnational activism, but also a locus for profound new debates and struggles over politics, economics, and freedom. This collection vividly brings these debates into view and makes the terms of intellectual property law legible in their political implications around the world.

“It’s hard to believe that the ‘definitive’ book has already been written about a movement as new as A2K. It’s even more unusual for an edited collection of essays to have the power of a monograph. But this collection of essays is both the definitive explanation of the access to knowledge movement and a beautifully constructed conversation about the various ideas, conceptual, political and organizational, that make it up. From Amy Kapczynski’s superb overview, to Yochai Benkler’s brilliant meditation on the commons, to Lawrence Liang’s superbly titled ‘The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Book,’ the central ideas of A2K are laid out with a freshness and power that is remarkable. And the rest of the contributors in the essays gathered here are just as strong. This is a must-have for university libraries, but it is also something that will be read intently, tactically, and sometimes uneasily, in venues ranging from WIPO to the university classroom. Highly recommended.”

James Boyle, Duke University, author of The Public Domain

“This is the first book of its kind. It comprehensively describes the intellectual contours of a powerful and emerging social movement and serves as a handbook for activism. The A2K movement is disparate and diverse. So assembling a volume that takes account of its various strands and influences is no small task. Gaëlle Krikorian and Amy Kapczynski have selected works from the most influential writers and practitioners of this new distributed politics. I will certainly assign this book to my survey course next year.”

Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia, author of The Googlization of Everything

See the news in Zone Books

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/access-to-knowledge

Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T05:34:47Z

Consumers can be empowered, and consumer organisations can make sure this happens through sharing and networking, speakers at the 19th Consumers International World Congress in Hong Kong said. The programme of the Congress finished on Thursday evening, and on Friday the global consumer body will hold its General Assembly and Council elections. This news was published in the Consumer's International Blog on May 5, 2011.

In his closing remarks, CI President Samuel Ochieng, emphasised "our ability to shape our future," ending the event on a positive note. Acting Director General, Helen McCallum, showed, in her remarks, the real excitement of the last few days.

Earlier, CI Vice President, James Guest, who is also President and CEO, Consumers Union of United States, delivered a keynote address on one of the key themes of the Congress: "The fight for fair financial services - a battle our movement must win".

Guest had this message for delegates and consumers around the world: "If you're wondering whether you, as an individual or through your organisation, can really make a difference in a David versus Goliath battle against the power of special interests, you already know the answer — yes, you can. The banking lobbyists are rich and powerful, and they spend a lot of money trying to buy influence. But there is one important asset that they lack and we have: people power. In the end, although it will be a hard and difficult fight, I believe that people power - mobilised by the over 220 members of CI - will eventually win.

"That’s because our cause and our stories and our passion are real. We fight for change, not because we are well-heeled lobbyists paid to do so, but because we care about our lives and the lives of our children, our neighbours, our countrymen, and citizens of the world - today and tomorrow, for this generation and the next."

Other highlights:

In a video message to the CI World Congress, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, that currently holds the presidency of the G20, said that the "G20 called for action on behalf of consumers, and with OECD I am working to protect consumers of financial services". She expressed the view that "consumers should be participants in the process of ensuring their own security," and admitted that "at the time of the crisis we did not focus enough on consumers in the first instance". Christine Lagarde said she remained "interested in the proposals developed for consumer protection and involvement following a successful CI Congress".

Gerd Leonhard, CEO of The Futures Agency, attracted a lot of interest with his views. Consumer organisations must network to have greater impact, they must share and publish; this is how you engage and enable others, he suggested. The difference between MTV and YouTube is the difference between 'the network' and networked, he said.

"'When five billion people are on the internet within a few years, the power of the consumer will be greater than ever," Gerd predicted.

We use social media/mobile phones to 'review' services, and corporations are paying attention, he added and noted that with broadband culture "everything known to man will be copied".

Former CI President Anwar Fazal delivered a rousing speech, which resulted in a standing ovation from the audience. He said that "in a world of big power, big media... networking is the new democracy".

Fazal added: ''CI is a force for social justice, we can do it, we must and we will!' He warned consumer organisations to "train new people or you will have no future," and noted that we "must not allow modernity to replace fundamental human connections".

On the subject of copyright and access to knowledge, David Hammerstein, TACD IP adviser, said: "We are not against copyright, we are for a more direct relation between artists and consumers".

CI's Dr Jeremy Malcolm added: "We want to support authors but not outdated regulation". He also argued that "unbalanced copyright and IP laws hurt consumers not pirates".

We aim to have A2K included in UN guidelines on consumer protection, Malcolm said.

Go to www.a2knetwork.org to comment on draft UN guidelines for A2K.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society, argued that fake mobile phone innovators in China are not pirates but "enablers of connectivity in the developing world".

Sue Rutledge, Coordinator for Global Program on Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy, World Bank, thanked Consumers International and HKCC for tackling the issue of financial services. She said that "all financial services providers should enable consumer redress," and that she "would like to see consumer ogranisations play an active role in protecting consumer financial protection".

Interviews

A number of speakers at CI World Congress have been interviewed by young TV journalists from Hong Kong City University involved in covering the event. Check the following videos:

You can also watch:

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-world-congress-day-3-roundup

2(m) or not 2(m)

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:55:48Z

An article by Nilanjana S Roy was published in the Business Standard on February 19, 2011. In this article Nilanjana Roy explains to us how a copyright amendment might change the way we read, write and publish in India.

Call this the war of the slogans. On one side, copyright lawyers and the Ministry of Human Resource Development offer the lure of cheaper books for Indian readers. On the other, publishers and authors speak of the death of Indian publishing as we know it.

Section 2(m), a proposed amendment to India’s copyright law that would allow the parallel import of books, is a dry piece of legalese, but it’s sparked a blog war, a flurry of publisher white papers, and a wide debate on copyright and territory.

The rationale is a legally sound one — to align Indian copyright law with Indian patent and trademark law, both of which follow the principle of “international exhaustion”: once a product has been legitimately sold, that product can be resold anywhere in the world without the consent of the owner of the copyright, be that the author or the publisher.

According to the Association of Publishers of India, “This proviso would mean that books published in any country could be freely made available and sold in India, without this amounting to infringement of copyright.”

Theoretically, parallel imports would allow a publisher or a printer who does not hold copyright to an Indian edition of a book to print his or her own editions of the book, under certain conditions, and release them back into the Indian market. There is also a fear among publishers that this might lead to widespread “dumping”, where the market is flooded with cheap, remaindered books.”

When this applies to books, specifically, one side argues that allowing “parallel imports” of books would open up the Indian publishing market to competition and would allow readers access to cheaper books. The other side argues that authors and publishers would suffer, and that in the long run, so would the reader. Thomas Abraham, managing director, Hachette India, states his position succinctly: “This would be the death of publishing and writing as we know it in India — and ironically by a surfeit of books.”

Step back from the rhetoric and the very complex issues involved about the intricacies of copyright law, territoriality in publishing, the book remainders market and book dumping, and here’s how the amendment is likely to affect readers, authors, publishers and booksellers.

Booksellers

Perhaps the sharpest summary comes from Landmark Bookstore’s Madhu Mohan: “As booksellers, we want to give our customers a wider range at a lower price. An open market immediately affords both: the cost of this is that publishers with Indian market rights might suffer. The more significantly affected parties are authors, publishers and readers. If, arguably, territorial rights are not sold, authors might earn lower advances. Publishers who have paid for territorial rights, are not able to get the full benefit of their monies. Readers should welcome the change, because at the outset they will get lower priced books.”

His view is echoed across the bookselling industry, with reactions ranging from indifference to the possible repercussions to cautious alarm — for many booksellers, a weak or damaged Indian publishing industry is also a negative.

Almost all booksellers agree that the short-term benefits of allowing parallel imports would be to lower the price of books. India already has among the lowest-priced English language books in the world, but it would be interesting to see if even lower prices reeled in a different kind of reader. As Mohan points out, book imports would be cheaper; books published in India by Indian or foreign authors would be adversely affected. The long-term scenario is another matter; if the Indian publishing industry is hit hard, we could be flooded with cheap, low-quality remainders, or lose price benefits in the long run.

Authors

For authors, what’s key about the 2(m) amendment is the way in which it would affect the writer’s copyright over his/ her work — and also the shifts it might bring about in the industry in general. Copyright lawyer Nandita Saikia observes that once a publisher effectively loses control over an edition of a book — if competing editions are allowed into the market — “This would significantly diminish the ability of publishers to invest in Indian authors and Indian writing.” From Abraham at Hachette to Chiki Sarkar at Random House to Tata McGraw Hill, there seems to be consensus on this aspect of the amendment.

In contrast, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society argues strongly in favour of 2(m) and dismantling the “licence raj” that requires booksellers and distributors to have authorisation to import books: “Allowing people to import goods without permissions (with appropriate duties) is taken for granted in all other areas, so why not copyrighted works? After all, it is not the act of publication that gets affected, but the right of exclusive distribution.”

But many authors point out that publishing and bookselling operate differently from other industries, and the dynamics of writing and bookselling are not comparable. Author Amit Varma puts forward the writer’s objections: “As the author of a book, I should have the right to assign the rights to sell my book to any publisher in India that I feel like, and the law should protect that right, and my contract with the publisher. Parallel import obviously makes a mockery of that right, and can deny me significant potential royalties.”

Publishers

At Penguin India, Andrew Phillips is blunt: “We stand firmly against the amendment. Penguin is both a ‘foreign’ publisher and an Indian publisher and we believe it will affect both parts of our business. We don’t believe the effects will be minor — to the contrary, this would have a fundamental impact on the publishing business both for international authors and Indian authors who aspire to be read outside India.”

The publishers’ arguments are complex, but stripped of the technicalities, they rest on the question of territoriality. When publishing worldwide operates on the basis of territorial agreements — authors sell rights to their works for specific regions — opening up the market unilaterally makes little sense. India might open its market, via 2(m), to competing imports and editions; but Indian publishers don’t have the right to sell similar editions of books in the UK or US markets.

In other words, the market would open up only in one direction — and this could diminish Indian publishers’ ability to nurture new writing, release Indian editions of foreign authors, and pay authors significant royalties.

Behind the rhetoric, nothing about this proposed change in copyright laws is simple, and the repercussions for authors and publishers are likely to be both significant and adverse. There’s an interesting parallel in the Australian market, which, like the Indian publishing industry, is thriving but relatively young, and lacks the clout of the formidable US, UK and European markets.

Two years ago, when the move to allow parallel imports of books was discussed in Australia, that discussion was fierce, impassioned and hotly contested. Nor was it limited to the industry; when readers realised that the debate was really over what they would get to read, which authors would benefit or lose out, and how this would impact their intellectual lives, the debate went public.

In the case of Australia, it took a full year of discussion before it was finally decided not to introduce parallel imports for the publishing industry. Whatever the possible adverse effects — or benefits — of parallel imports, we haven’t had that discussion yet in India. It’s a necessary one, and it affects anybody equipped with a mind, a wallet and the ability to walk into a bookstore. This would be a good time to have it, before the law is set in stone.

The original article was published by Business Standard.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment

Copyright bill restricts Net access

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:21:40Z

Law to curb piracy may fetter creativity

The government introduced the copyright amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha on April 19. The bill gives independent rights to authors, film directors and musicians and makes it difficult for Internet users to access works protected by copyright.

G R Raghavender, registrar of copyrights, said the amendments are necessary as the Copyright Act of 1957 gives minimum protection to writers and artists against commercial exploitation of their works through the Internet.

Under lock without key

But the bill lacks clarity on some aspects. For instance, it introduces technological protection measures (tpms)—locks that restrict access to copyrighted material and help the copyright holder decide how his or her work should be used.

The bill allows users to bypass the lock if it is for a purpose not prohibited by the law, such as research. But for that the user should have the means to unlock the tpm. The bill assumes the users would know how to bypass the lock but that need not be the case, said Pranesh Prakash, of the non-profit Centre for Internet and Society.

The Spanish law, for instance, requires copyright holders to help legitimate users access their work.

Shamnad Basheer, who teaches intellectual property law at the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, said tpm is an added restriction and not required. “India is not obligated to import tpms into its copyright law as it is not a member of the World International Property Organization internet treaties (the amended bill conforms to these treaties). Raghavender said tpms are a must for curbing piracy.

The bill evoked mixed reactions in the film and music industry. Abhishek Chaubey, director of the recently released film Ishqiya, said the bill would put creative people in a stronger position. But Hiren Gada who runs the production house, Shemaroo Entertain-ment, is against directors getting copyrights. “It is against the fundamental principle of the film business; directors don’t share losses with producers if a film flops,” he pointed out. Dhruv Jagasia, manager of the music band Indian Ocean, said he was not sure if the bill would be implemented effectively as in the US where “cheques arrive by mail if one’s track is played on the radio”.

Print impaired get short shrift

Non-profits working for the physically challenged said the bill does not address certain handicaps. Rahul Cherian of www.inclusiveplanet.com, an online platform for print impaired, said the bill permits conversion of printed material only to special formats like Braille and sign language, not mainstream formats like audio tapes and text with large font size. “There are about 70 million print disabled persons in India. Those affected by cerebral palsy, dyslexia and visually impaired persons who do not know Braille, would need to access material in mainstream formats. The bill does not benefit them,” said Cherian. He added the bill allows only organizations working for disabled to seek licence to publish works in mainstream formats. Educational institutions, self-help groups and physically challenged individuals can’t obtain the licence.

While copyright amendment bill seeks to protect intellectual property, there are people who think it fetters creativity. “Copyright is a fairly recent phenomenon and should not be considered natural. Were that the case, the entire cultural history of humanity would not have occurred,” said Shuddhabrata Sen of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies. Swaraj Paul Barooah, researcher at the Nalsar university of law in Hyderabad, said, “In a developing country like India the emphasis should be on adapting and improvising on the works in the public domain.”

Given the circumstances, should the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi’s works be renewed. The copyright for his writings expired in 2009. Former governor of West Bengal and Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi said there was nothing to lament. “The expiration of the copyright term should be the beginning of responsible access and use. It would be important in the computer age to use his manuscripts with great responsibility because no one can sue the user under the copyright law,” he said.

The bill has been referred to the standing committee of the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development for vetting.

Read the original in Down to Earth

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-bill-restricts-net-access

Digital Wrongs

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T16:26:11Z

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights. This article by Rohin Dharmakumar was published in Forbes India on January 28, 2011.

Imagine you are in the mood for some fun and so you create a spoof video, the sort that you find on YouTube everyday. If the changes proposed under the Indian Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 come through, you won’t be able to do that.

The bill explicitly recognises the technology protection measures that publishers wrap around their content, commonly known as digital rights management (DRM), but without placing any limitations on it.

So there’s a good chance a parody clip that uses video clips from a news show or of a baby dancing to the tune of ‘Sheila ki Jawani’ could be taken down by over eager copyright owners.

Pranesh Prakash, a program manager with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit civil society policy advocacy and research body, says such a scenario is perfectly possible under the proposed new law. “Providing legal backing to technological protection measures without imposing appropriate duties means that companies can effectively expand their rights to whatever technology can do. It’s a ridiculous situation,” he says.

Even worse, the law provides for criminal liability for breaking such DRM. Ask the Indian developers behind ‘PlayFair’, an open source software that allowed consumers to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM.

The developers were forced to stop their project even though Apple challenged them under the US DMCA law, which has no jurisdiction in India. They still folded because as individuals they didn't have the wherewithal to challenge Apple in a court.

“Our basic principle is that generally large corporations have the wherewithal to go to court and get orders, but individuals don’t. That balance must be maintained in the law, that everything isn’t presumptively violative of the law,” says Prakash.

Many fear of what might happen when digital rights management actually starts getting protection under Indian law. Raman Jit Singh Chima, a policy analyst with Google India’s legal team, says the present version of the amendment is unclear on intermediary liability and ‘fair dealing’. Simply put, if a user does something illegal, even the service provider or search site that was used may become liable for the offence.

“Unless the government or a court of law interprets it otherwise, this could mean users submitting their content for approval before uploading, with approvals taking months due to the volume of information on the Internet,” says Chima.

Read the original in Forbes India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/digital-wrongs

Does India need its own Bayh-Dole?

sachia — 2011-04-02T15:58:46Z

Article by Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at Centre for Internet and Society in the Indian Express, 24 April 2009

Across the world battlelines are being drawn in the normally quiet areas of academia and research. The opposing sides: those in favour of open and collaborative research and development as a means to promote innovation, and those in favour of perpetuating the profits of big pharma companies and academic publishers. Currently before a Select Parliamentary Committee is a controversial law that will deny basic healthcare to millions by making medicines much more expensive, lock up academic knowledge, and help privatise publicly-funded research. The law titled the Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008 (“PUPFIP Bill”, http://bit.ly/pupfip-bill) was tabled last December in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Science and Technology. It was created in utmost secrecy by the Department of Science and Technology, without so much as a draft version having been shared with the public for comments.

The PUPFIP Bill is an Indian version of a 1980 US legislation, the Bayh-Dole Act, and as per its statement of objects and reasons, it seeks to promote creativity and innovation to enable India “to compete globally and for the public good”. It aims to do so by ensuring the protection of all intellectual property (meaning copyright, patent, trade mark, design, plant variety, etc.) that is the outcome of government-funded research. The IP rights will be held by the grant recipient, or by the government if the recipient does not choose to protect the IP. This might seem like a good way to enable technology transfer from research institutes to the industry, but that would be a very myopic view, disregarding all evidence related to the failure of the Bayh-Dole Act. Last year Prof. Anthony So of Duke University co-authored an extensive analysis of the Bayh-Dole Act, and warned of the consequences of such legislation in developing countries.

First, such a law will shift the focus of research. Researchers will be inclined to to concentrate their efforts on issues of interest to industry, and which can have immediate benefit. This would force vital fundamental research into neglect since it cannot be commercialised with ease. Research by Saul Lach and Mark Schankerman shows that scientists are influenced by royalty rates, and will thus tend to work on industrial research rather than fundamental research. This creates, or at least exacerbates, what is popularly known as the “90/10 gap”: the fact that ninety per cent of medical research money goes into problems affecting ten per cent of the world’s population, since that ten per cent is richer.

Secondly, this law will have chilling effects on scholarly communications and promote secrecy. The Bill has requirements of non-disclosure by the grantee and the researcher to enable the commercialisation of the research, and requires researchers and institutions to inform the government before all publication of research. Such bureaucratisation of research publications will stultify intellectual pursuits. Such secrecy and permission-raj culture is anathema to intellectual and academic pursuits, where knowledge is sought to be freely disseminated, to be criticised and further revised by others. In South Africa, academics affected by the recent passage of a PUPFIP-type legislation there are questioning its constitutionality as it restrains freedom of speech.

Thirdly, this will lead to our pillars of learning and research becoming like businesses. US universities like Columbia and Duke have found themselves at the receiving end of criticism for their brazen commercialism, encouraged by the Bayh-Dole Act. Instead of promoting greater access to health for the poor, and spending money on research, the universities were spending money on patent litigation in court. The outcome of one of these cases was the rejection of Duke University’s research exemption defence (universities are generally not bound to observe patents when they wished to conduct research). The court held that the university had “business interests” which the research unmistakably furthered. This points at a fundamental divide between universities as places of learning and as places of profiteering. The Open Source Drug Discovery (OSSD) project that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is currently pursuing is a good attempt at promoting a culture of openness and transparency and collaboration, and thus ensuring cheaper and more efficient drug discovery. Even the US government is currently seeking to clear the way for generic versions of biotech drugs. In such an environment, it is counter-intuitive to bring in a regressive law, and goes against innovative efforts such as the OSSD, and will harm the generics industry.

Fourthly, the Bill assumes — erroneously, as an ever-growing amount of research demonstrates (Boldrin & Levine, Bessen & Meurer, etc.) — that intellectual property is the best and only way to promote creativity and innovation. All forms of intellectual property are state-granted monopolistic rights. At a basic level, competition promotes innovations while monopoly retards it. Much of modern science developed without the privilege of patents. Surely, Darwin and Newton were not encouraged by patents. And even whole industries — like the software industry — flourish without patent protection in most of the world.

The commendable aim of ensuring knowledge transfer can be accomplished much better if we refrain from giving away to private corporations (whether pharmaceutical manufacturers or publishers) exclusive rights to the product of publicly-funded research. Scientists and researchers can be encouraged to be consultants to various industrial projects, thereby ensuring that their expertise is tapped. Importantly, open access publishing which helps to ensure wide distribution and dissemination of knowledge is surely more desirable. That is the trend being followed the world over currently. The US president recently signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Bill which makes permanent the National Institutes of Health’s open access policy. By doing so, he symbolically rejected calls (such as the much-criticised Conyers Bill) to privatise publicly funded research outputs. Thus, there are many ways by which the government can encourage innovation and creativity, and further public interest. The PUPFIP Bill, which will have deleterious unintended consequences if it is passed, is not one of them.

-----

To read the article at the Indian Express website, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/does-india-need-its-own-bayh-dole

Call to increase awareness of intellectual property rights

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:47:26Z

We need more knowledge on IPR itself, says IT Secretary

There is an imperative need to focus on intellectual property rights issues, provide more information to the public on what constitutes IPR and how to deal with violations, Information Technology secretary PWC Davidar said.

“We need more knowledge on IPR itself. Very few people are aware of what IPR is and therefore unaware that they are violating someone's IPR, for instance, even when they copy for an essay,” Mr. Davidar said at the inaugural of the seminar on Access to Knowledge. It was organised by the Consumers Association of India and Consumers International, Kuala Lumpur in association with the Madras Library Association.

Assignments

Even when it came to assignments in schools, colleges and universities, sometimes Ph.D. theses as well, one hears of people borrowing from others' work, Mr. Davidar said.

This kind of thing was very tightly controlled in the West, where software was used to pick up plagiarism. However, that was not so strictly enforced in India, he added.

Debate

Mr. Davidar also highlighted the debate on IPR in areas such as environment or health where lives could be at stake.

“When it comes to academics, you know clearly that you should not borrow without acknowledgement. It is not as simple in situations where a solution can save several lives or prevent destruction of property. Such technologies should be shared, without being safeguarded in the corporate domain by IPR,” he added.

R. Desikan, founder, CAI, provided a brief report on the activities of the organisation and stressed the need to increase awareness of consumer rights, and IPR. Pranesh Prakash, from Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, stressing the need to provide access to knowledge in the context of IPR, also hinted at the negative aspects that patents might have on consumers.

Knowledge economy

Former Chief Vigilance Commissioner N. Vittal said consumers were living in a knowledge economy.

Pointing to the example of Japan that worked backwards on creating their own process with an end product (already invented in the U.S.) in mind, he advised that India too should examine whether it could benefit from such reverse engineering.

“Knowledge only grows with distribution,” he added, alluding to the teaching of the Upanishads.

Read the original article in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/increase-awareness-of-ipr

Intellectual Property Rights as seen in a graphic novel

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T06:32:01Z

While most engagements with the issue of Intellectual Property Rights take the form of academic papers and scholarly articles, the Centre for Internet and Society is approaching the subject through another medium – an online graphic novel. Commissioned by the organisation, and conceived, written and drawn by Mumbai-based Anand Ramachandran (a man who keeps himself busy in a number of ways, from writing satire columns to developing videogame designs), the novel, titled Learning to Floo, is being serialised on the CIS website.

“People are aware of the implications of IPR issues when it comes to movies and music,” said Ramachandran, over the phone from Mumbai. “Less so when it comes to patents and medicines. We’re trying to throw light on some of these issues through the comic.” One attraction of dealing with the subject through a story is that it becomes possible to avoid proselytising. “We’re telling a story, not taking a moral stand,” said Ramachandran.

The premise – an India many centuries in the future. IPR laws have slowly become so restrictive that people can’t even hum a popular tune without first paying a license fee. As a result creativity and originality have been strangled, and people’s brains have turned to mush. A band of rebels holds out, including an individual named Teech who, as the story opens, is in prison awaiting execution. Unknown to him and his cohorts, the government actually needs them because, as pirates, they have access to knowledge that has been lost to the rest of mankind. A prison break sets the story off at a cracking pace.

Ramachandran uses Celtx to write his scripts, and Xara Xtreme and the GIMP pencil and airbrush tool for the illustrations – all free software, he pointed out. The art is minimalist, with one or two facial features defining each character (Teech himself has no facial features), and the story is sped along by snappy dialogue and smooth storyboarding. CIS also has plans to produce a print version of the comic once it is complete. Ajay Krishnan

Learning to Floo can be read here
Read the original article in TimeOut Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ipr-in-graphic-novel

Civil Society groups urge State Judicial Academy to restructure agenda for Judges' Roundtable meet

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:47:36Z

Some of the Civil Society groups in the country have urged the Maharashtra State Judicial Academy to restructure the agenda for the 'Judges Roundtable on Intellectual Property Rights Adjudication' being held in Mumbai on July 24 and 25 to promote public interest and a deeper understanding of intellectual property amongst judicial officers. FICCI is the joint organiser of the event.

In a letter to justice Dr D Y Chandrachud, director (Officiating), Maharashtra State Judicial Academy, the Civil Society groups said that the industry associations like FICCI and CII are primarily known for their lobbying activities towards greater IP protection. Therefore it is not proper for Judicial Academies to collaborate with such organisations without ensuring that the agenda that is set does not promote a biased view. While industry input is necessary, such one-sided collaborations will result in marginalisation of public interest in the IP enforcement
adjudication.

The agenda clearly shows that one side view of IPR and ignores the core concerns emerging out of IPR protection and enforcement related to access to knowledge and access to medicines. Except three academics, all other resource persons outside of the judicial fraternity are from corporate IP law firms and industry associations. The agenda failed to provide a balanced view on IP protection and enforcement, they said.

The letter further said that it is very clear from the agenda and the list of speakers of the roundtable that it is highly skewed, and that there is no balancing of viewpoints that the judicial officers are being presented with. Many of the speakers, who are from corporate law firms, have openly, in public, advocated against public interest provisions of the Indian Patent Act, such as s.3(d) which seeks to prevent evergreening of pharmaceutical patents or s.3(k) which seeks to prevent basic building blocks of technology and business like mathematics,
business methods, and software, from being patented.

Moreover, many of the lawyers have made attempts to import the jurisprudence of developed countries in the matters relating to the enforcement of IPRs, too often with success. Anton Piller orders, which are no longer prevalent in the UK, have been imported into India and modified to even allowing for lock-breaking. This very idea of adhering to foreign jurisprudence on the matters of IPR is highly opposed to the development of indigenous jurisprudence. We feel that jurisprudence of a country should be based on the developmental issues and contexts at the domestic level.

Further, at least four resource persons represent the industry associations like Indian music Industry (IMI), Business Software Alliances (BSA) and The Film & Television Producers Guild of India Ltd. These associations have been actively advocating for IP enforcement law and policies at the national and international level, which undermine the public interest. Hence, these resource people are not in a position to provide a holistic perspective on IP protection and its enforcement, the Civil Society groups contended.

“In the interest of equity and justice, we urge you to take appropriate actions, including requiring the sensitization programme to be balanced both from an industry perspective as well as from a developmental perspective. The Maharashtra State Judicial Academy's collaboration with FICCI does not seem to do either, and instead specific narrow interests seem to be promoted in the form of a sensitization programme. We urge you restructure the agenda to avoid this capture of interest and to actually promote public interest and a deeper understanding of
intellectual property amongst judicial officers,” they said.

This article by Ramesh Shankar appeared in Pharmabiz.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/judges-roundtable-meet

Letter from Civil Society Organizations to CII

pranesh — 2011-04-02T15:15:44Z

A total of 29 groups and individuals expressed their concern about the drive by CII to introduce TRIPS-plus enforcement standards in India.

Original report in Business Standard

Govt accepts panel report against narrowing of Indian patent law

BS Reporter / New Delhi August 18, 2009, 1:14 IST

The central government has accepted the recommendations of an expert committee headed by former Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) chief R A Mashelkar on patent laws. The committee had concluded that limiting the grant of patents for pharmaceutical substances to new chemical entities will be a violation of the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In effect, the committee endorsed the current position taken by India, in allowing patenting of known medicines if they have substantial new therapeutic uses.

The Mashelkar committee was formed after the government got passed the Patent Bill in 2005. It was assigned to see if the demand for narrowing the patent laws would breach India’s obligations under the WTO agreement. Mashelkar had presented the committee report in 2007, only for it to be withdrawn due to complaints of “technical errors”. The revised copy, submitted to the government few months ago, was accepted recently.

The move has come as a setback to many civic groups who were hoping to see a a constriction of Indian patent laws. The domestic lobby groups were heartened after a committee of Parliamentarians recently recommended changes in the existing rules to limit patenting of medicines to just “new chemical entities”.

In a letter to commerce minister Anand Sharma, the National Working Group on Patent Laws asked for the “recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee to take precedence over those of the Mashelkar committee.” It wanted the Mashelkar committee recommendations to be disregarded and appropriate amendments introduced in the Patents Act, 1970.

The civil society groups are stepping up protest against the “alleged” move to link “counterfeit” issues with intellectual property protection. In an open letter to Confederation of Indian Industry today, 21 groups have protested against the intellectual property enforcement initiatives of the CII.

“It is disheartening to note that the CII, being an Indian industry organization, is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China, a body that comprises over 80 multinational corporations”, Linu Mathew Phillip, acting director of the Delhi-based Centre for Trade and Development said. “It is of immense concern to all of us, since higher norms of intellectual property enforcement necessarily undermine various other rights of the people at large, including the right to access to medicines and access to knowledge,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/letter-from-civil-society-organizations-to-cii