The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Zero Project Conference on Accessibility: Innovative Policies and Practices for Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014
<b>Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre convened an international conference at the United Nations Office in Vienna, Austria on February 27 and 28, 2014. Pranesh Prakash participated in the conference as a speaker. On February 27 he spoke on e-speak and on the following day (February 28) he spoke in a session on Copyright & the Marrakesh Treaty: Opportunities and Challenges.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The conference was attended by over 450 people. Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan had submitted two proposals, one on innovative practices (eSpeak) and one on innovative policy (India's copyright policy). Click on the links below to find more on these:</p>
<ol>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/India_eSpeak-Text-to-Speech-Engine.pdf">Affordable text-to-speech software from India</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Copyright-Amendment-Act_India.pdf">Copyright exception for accessible formats</a></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once again, the Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre have joined forces to convene an international conference in Vienna, Austria. On this occasion we aim to raise awareness about innovative solutions from around the world that advance accessibility for persons with disabilities. The conference seeks to strengthen the commitment of all stakeholders to promote, protect and advance the rights of persons with disabilities, and to improve their daily lives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the third Zero Project Conference on “Accesibility: Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices for Persons with Disabilities” parliamentarians, representatives of NGOs and foundations, academics, social entrepreneurs, disability rights activists and the business world will come together to discuss Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices and explore ways to promote and spread them to other countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Policies: Paving the Way</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Building on the success of our conferences in January 2012 and February 2013, at this Zero Project Conference, 15 Innovative Policies will be presented. They contain promising elements, have achieved identifiable improvements on the ground and point to a positive dynamic change that can be easily replicated in many countries around the world to advance the implementation of the Convention. They overcome conditions that act as barriers to the full exercise of rights by persons with disabilities and constitute the outcome of a multilevel research and selection process.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Practices: Crucial Steps</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project team has done extensive research worldwide on the most outstanding projects. The expert network that contributed their expertise in actively nominating and evaluating projects included more than 500 persons worldwide from 120 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These projects cover all areas of accessibility, including built environment, transport, products and services and ICT (information, communication and technology).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Be part of the Zero Project Network!</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project Conference gathers in Vienna the world’s leading representatives of the disability rights movement in order to facilitate a direct exchange of experiences. In this way the world’s most innovative and promising solutions are jointly identified, disseminated and further developed in order to make a noticeable improvement in the daily life and legal situation of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Join the discussion and explore possibilities and potentials on how global implementation of these exemplary solutions can be advanced!</p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/At-a-glance-barrierfree-FINAL2.doc">programme schedule</a></li>
<li>Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Speakerslist-ZPC-20141.pdf">speakers list</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014'>https://cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2014-03-06T08:44:00ZNews ItemWIPO: Scope and rights of potential broadcasting treaty clarified
https://cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified
<b>This post by Alexandra Bhattacharya was published in SUNS #7796 dated 5 May 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read the story posted on Third World Network <a class="external-link" href="http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2014/ip140502.htm">here</a>. CIS is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Integral concepts and the options on the scope of a proposed broadcasting treaty, and the substantive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations have been further elucidated.<br /> <br /> The 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) completed its two- and-half-day discussion on 30 April of the agenda item on a proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations - a 16-year-old issue in WIPO.<br /> <br /> However, a number of member states (India and Brazil) pointed out that there was further need to tackle the technical issues and that there was still no clear consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The results of the informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) held by the committee's Chair have produced two tables based on Article 6 which deals with the "Scope of Application" of the proposed treaty, and with Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in the working document (SCCR/27/2 Rev).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is no clear consensus on most of the elements in the tables, but they are meant to consolidate all the options and proposals currently in place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 27th session of the SCCR is taking place in Geneva from 28 April to 2 May.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2007, WIPO's General Assembly agreed to pursue a "signal-based approach" to drafting a new treaty to provide protection for broadcasting organisations, to ensure that provisions on signal theft in themselves did not give broadcasters additional rights over program content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Results of Informal Consultations: Tables on Scope of Application and Rights</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The informal consultations have resulted in a table on the Scope of Application of the treaty which relates to Article 6 of the proposed treaty. The potential applicable areas identified include:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(i) traditional broadcasting [and cablecasting](wireless or by wire)(+pre-broadcast signal);<br /> <br /> (ii) simultaneous and unchanged transmission of broadcast program (simulcasting);<br /> <br /> (iii) deferred linear transmission of broadcast program;<br /> <br /> (iv) on-demand transmission of broadcasting program (catch up) and program-related material (to be defined); and<br /> <br /> (v) internet originated linear transmission (webcasting).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elements (ii) to (v) relate to transmission over the Internet [if included, only for traditional broadcasters/cable casters]. The Chair stated that there was greater emphasis on traditional broadcasting which included both wireless or by wire along with pre-broadcast signals. There was greater divergence with respect to transmissions over the internet with a majority position that simultaneous and almost simultaneous broadcasting should be part of the treaty. Some had also expressed the opinion that webcasting should be beyond the scope of the treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second table relates to rights for broadcasting organisations and is in the context of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This table includes: (i) simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium; (ii) Near simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium (to be defined); (iii) Transmission of the broadcast signal to the public from a fixation and over any medium (not limited in time) including the making available right; (iv) Fixation of a broadcast signal, reproduction of fixation of broadcasts, distribution of fixations (copies) of broadcasts, performance of broadcast signal in places accessible to the public [against payment of an entrance fee]; (v) Protection of pre-broadcast signals; and (vi) National Treatment when the protection is equivalent; reciprocity when there is a difference in the protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the presentation of the tables in the plenary, Brazil said that "for the sake of transparency", it wanted to state that the informal discussions were helpful in the sense that they had produced a "deeper understanding of what we are talking about".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stressed that it had tremendous difficulty in referring to the word "consensus", as many aspects were yet to be clarified. It underlined the need to see the discussion with a "grain of salt".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported the statement by Brazil, noting that although the committee had "grappled with many issues," there was need for a more technical discussion. In this context, it proposed that broadcasting engineering experts be invited to an informal experts' meeting during the next session of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Support for India's proposal was voiced by the United States, Brazil, El Salvador, Canada, and Colombia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union stated that the discussions showed that a number of delegations had expressed their support for covering traditional broadcasting and cablecasting transmissions. The most divergent views were with respect to simulcasting deferred transmissions and on-demand transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also said that there was a need to have more discussion with respect to elements (ii) and (iii) of the table on Rights. It added that there could be flexibility on element four if there was a good solution for two and three.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States was of the opinion that the "charts" that pulled out the multiple proposals on the table allowed the delegation to understand the key elements better and also to get some initial indication of the thinking of different delegations on those elements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It observed that there was general agreement as to the inclusion of traditional broadcasting over the air which is clearly within the mandate of the General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elements (i) and (ii) in the table on rights, the simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmission of signals to the public were essentially the proposal of the United States for discussion purposes, it added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago stated for the record that it would like the scope of protection to include traditional broadcasting and cablecasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China stated that simulcasting should be included in the treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Protection for Broadcasting Organisations: Exclusive Rights Discussed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second day of the SCCR focused on Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" which deals with the substantive rights envisaged in the protection for broadcasting organisations in the potential treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The divergence in views related to the scope and range of the substantive rights to be given to broadcasting organisations. This issue, along with the Scope of Protection (Article 6), remains one of the integral areas of the proposed treaty where consensus is yet to be reached.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A consistent concern expressed by a number of member states and some stakeholders' groups such as those representing copyright providers (authors, actors, musicians) during the session, has been the need to ensure that the potential broadcasting treaty did not infringe or curtail the existing rights of underlying content providers of the broadcast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As seen in the discussion on the Scope of Protection, the complexity of the issue was evident and member states were encouraged to work on a matrix of exclusive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations in order to both cement progress and also for better conceptualisation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[The current text of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" includes two Alternatives A and B which deal with exclusive rights to be authorised to broadcasting organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Alternative A lists fewer rights which include: (i) the re-transmission of their broadcast signals to the public, by any means; (ii) performance of their broadcast signal in places accessible to the public, for commercial advantage or using very large screens; (iii) the use of a pre-broadcast signal intended for them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights and includes: (i) the right of fixation of their broadcasts; (ii) the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts; (iii) the re-transmission of their broadcasts by any means, including re-broadcasting, re-transmission by wire, and re-transmission over computer networks; (iv) the communication to the public of their broadcasts; (v) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them; (vi) the transmission by any means for the reception by the public of their broadcasts following fixation of such broadcasts; (vii) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts, through sale or other transfer of ownership.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[India's proposal in the Annex of the working document is essentially based on the right to prohibit, if done without authorisation, the following: (i) the re-broadcast of their signal through traditional broadcasting means; (ii) causing the broadcast to be seen or heard in public on payment of any charge; and (iii) make a fixation of signal for the purpose of re-broadcast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Additionally, for this session, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan tabled a proposal (SCCR/27/6) in which a broad range of rights such as fixation and re-transmission rights are included.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[The United States has also included a proposal for "discussion purposes" which states that "Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission of their broadcast or pre-broadcast signal over any medium".]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair sought comments from member states on how to move forward on the issue, particularly with respect to determining the range of rights to be given to broadcasting organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, introducing the group proposal SCCR/27/6, said that adequate protection should be afforded to broadcasters, bearing in mind the economic investment required by them. It added that there should be the broadest scope for the protection to be enjoyed by the broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus stated that these rights have to be linked to re-broadcasting of any such content and with the broadcasting of the content in whatever form. It added that the exhaustion of the rights should be left to domestic legislations.<br />With respect to India's proposal, Belarus stated that the right to prohibit was not sufficient.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States stated that its proposal for discussion attempted to "cut through the debate on the scope of rights" and attempted to focus on a "single core right".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposal for a "right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission" focused on the need to address the fundamental concerns of the broadcasting organisations within the scope of the 2007 General Assembly mandate on a signal-based protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US added that it was suggesting no post-fixation rights at the international level and only for the protection of the signal. Any protection for post-fixation would be relying on the protection of the content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The right to authorise the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission would include the broadcast and pre-broadcast signal, it explained.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also noted that there had not been opposition to the treaty covering these elements during the meeting, adding that there had not been any consensus on post-fixation rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US further suggested an approach which could be either (i) based on the US proposal, or (ii) used the US proposal as a basis and included some version of post-fixation rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It said that there was a need for something that "we can all agree to in the international level".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India stated that its proposal was based on protection for broadcasting organisations based on a "signal based" approach in the traditional sense. In this context, it supported protection for simultaneous broadcasting in the traditional sense and not for webcasting and simulcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico was of the opinion that there was a need to seek "the establishment of general standards" and the discussion had to focus on general principles and not on the details.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this context, it supported the proposal by the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a similar vein, South Africa noted the need for a general signal-based approach and supported the proposal by the US which was based on a narrow scope of rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil also expressed support for the US proposal and stated that with this "narrow and simple" approach it would be possible to make progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It however expressed reservation about including other forms of protection other than for simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union also agreed that there was consensus in the room as to the right to authorise or prohibit simultaneous transmissions by any means. However, there was a need to focus on transmissions from fixations where there was less clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that there was a need to separate the discussion from fixation and post-fixation rights. There was also a need to be clear about what "near simultaneous" transmissions meant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU said that there was a need to also be clear about what kind of rights were referred to with respect to the right to prohibit.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada stated that a single solution to signal piracy remained a challenge and that it was attached to finding a minimum standard today. It added that there was a need to look at both pre- and post-fixation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also noted that there were different modes of delivery of broadcasts and there were a number of alternatives in the text. In this context, it would be useful to develop a matrix to further the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need to simplify the range of rights on the table was echoed by the US, Ecuador, Chile and Colombia.<br />The Russian Federation supported the approach in restricting rights in some way and to focus on agreements previously reached, particularly with reference to traditional broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that with respect to including additional rights in the scope of protection, there would be a need to receive corresponding authority from the General Assembly to do that.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It reiterated that a signal-based approach had already been decided and " if we are going to keep looking at every nuance, then we will not get anywhere".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran stated that the aim of the exercise should focus on the "anti-piracy function" and the function of the treaty should stop all forms of piracy. It noted that one approach could be an umbrella solution as seen in the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair proposed informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) in order to make progress on a matrix with respect to the range of rights and the scope of application of the potential treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns Expressed by Observers</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A number of observers to the SCCR representing broadcasting organisations expressed the need for a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organisations; however, a number of other organisations also expressed reservations with the current work being undertaken in the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) stated that it opposed the idea of granting any new layer of intellectual property rights for broadcasters that would make it more expensive and more complex to legally obtain access to and use of information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It explained that this treaty could create many problems for consumers especially if it is without very clear fixation rights, the rights in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, performances, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and other material in which there are copyright and related rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) said that they saw no compelling public policy reason for a new international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, because piracy of broadcast signals is already adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They explained that the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians, because it imposes an additional barrier to access to knowledge, especially to content in the public domain and that libraries have practical experience of such over-protection caused by multiple layers of rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EIFL and IFLA urged the member states to consider the costs to taxpayers and society, as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also expressed concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was of the opinion that the current language expanded the scope of the proposed treaty and was likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stated that the language in Article 9 envisaged fixation and post-fixation rights for broadcasting organisations, for instance, among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance and this was inconsistent with a signal-based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Secondly, it expressed reservations on the inclusion of "communication to the public" reflected in Article 9 Alternative B.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stated that communication to the public was an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the "broadcast" or "transmission" of a signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, attempts to regulate "communication to the public" would not be consistent with a signal-based approach, which the CIS believes is the mandate binding on this Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair's conclusions on all the agenda items are expected to be circulated and finalised on the last day of the session (2 May 2014).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The remaining days of the SCCR focused on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives as well as Limitations and Exceptions for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified'>https://cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-05-28T07:03:17ZNews ItemWIPO To Negotiate Treaty For The Blind In June; ‘Still Some Distance To Travel’
https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june
<b>In a swift 15 minute session this morning delegates at the World Intellectual Property Organization extraordinary assembly agreed to convene a high-level meeting in Morocco in June to finalise a treaty on international exceptions to copyrights on books in special formats for visually impaired people. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Catherine Saez was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/18/wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june-still-some-distance-to-travel/">published</a> in Intellectual Property Watch on December 18, 2012. Rahul Cherian is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After long informal discussions yesterday with the assembly chair, Ambassador Uglješa Zvekić of Serbia, the decision <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WIPO-EGA-Decisions-Dec-2012.pdf" target="_blank">document</a> [pdf] was issued this morning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “It is a great decision. Of course we are all aware that there is still some distance to travel before we have a treaty, but this decision, I think, places us one further step along the road and in a very good position to be able to deliver the objective, namely a very positive outcome of this exercise, with a good treaty that improves the situation of visually impaired persons and the print disabled.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The General Assembly decided that a diplomatic conference should be convened in June 2013, in Morocco, with a mandate to negotiate and conclude a treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Furthermore, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will meet in a special session for five days in February to expedite further text-based work on the draft treaty, <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_25/sccr_25_2.pdf" target="_blank">document SCCR/25/2</a> [pdf] “in order to reach sufficient level of agreement on the text.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly also directs "the Preparatory Committee to meet at the end of the February SCCR meeting to decide, if needed whether additional work is required with the objective of holding a successful Conference in June 2013," the decision says. It also states that the preparatory committee will invite observers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly decision has five paragraphs. With respect to paragraph 4 of the decision (on the special work session in February), Zvekić said, “we agreed to state for the record that in this paragraph, the phrase ‘additional work’ means additional work by either the SCCR or the preparatory committee, so that the preparatory committee can decide that either itself, the SCCR, or both may have additional work to do in order to prepare a revised text for the diplomatic conference.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Document SCCR/25/2, which contains the draft articles as approved by the last SCCR session in November, "will constitute the substantive articles of the Basic Proposal for the Diplomatic Conference," the decision says, “with the understanding that any Member State and the special delegation of the European Union may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly also established a preparatory committee, which met at the close of the assembly this morning to work on modalities of the diplomatic conference, such as the draft rules of procedure, the list of states and organisations to be invited, and the agenda, dates, venue and other organisational questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Blue Sky with Some Clouds</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new consensus on a diplomatic conference and on a legally binding treaty to create exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of visually impaired people cannot eclipse the fact that the draft text still reflects profound divisions between countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In February, delegates will have to tackle remaining issues, such as the inclusion of the three step test and commercial availability, on which they currently are at a standstill. Both inclusions are favoured by developed countries, in an effort to protect their right holders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yesterday morning, the delegation of Barbados said the treaty should be effective, and “while acknowledging the importance of safeguards,” it is important that “provisions in the text would not unduly restrict authorised entities from making accessible formats available under national law exceptions.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Provisions should not render the text nugatory through exposing authorised entities to possible liability and making their work administratively burdensome,” the delegate said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WBU-press-release-18-Dec-2012.doc" target="_blank">press release</a> [doc] issued today by the World Blind Union (WBU), Maryanne Diamond, leader of the WBU Right To Read campaign, said, "The decision of the WIPO Extraordinary General Assembly today is a very significant milestone on the road to a treaty. It means governments have kept the work on track to agree a binding and effective treaty in 2013, which if completed would allow blind people to access many thousands more books."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The work is far from over, though. We urge all parties to now negotiate a simple, binding and effective treaty. A good treaty will really help us to end the book famine in which only some one to seven percent of books are ever made accessible to us," the release said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rahul Cherian, from Indian WBU member Inclusive Planet, also said in the release that "the objective of this treaty must be that of helping blind and print disabled people to get accessible format books, especially in developing countries. To achieve this goal, it must be workable and simply worded so that blind and print disabled people and their organisations can use it to really make a difference."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently in many countries, copyright law prevents charities from making accessible copies of books, and from sending them to others in countries speaking the same language, the release said. "The WIPO treaty sought by the World Blind Union would remove these copyright barriers and open up a new world of reading to blind people."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june'>https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-21T11:50:04ZNews ItemWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 3 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 3 of 3) summarizes Day 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts. </b>
<hr />
<p><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr />
<h2>Day 5 – 26th SCCR</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The agenda for the final day of the 26th SCCR was set as limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Trinidad and Tobago</b>, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC group of nations, supported the idea of an international convention on this agenda. It was of the opinion that such an instrument would work for the benefit of the economic development and socioeconomic enablement of millions of people in the GRULAC region. <b>Algeria</b>, speaking on behalf of the African Group, emphasized the digitalization of education, research and living across the world and the impact that this has on the right of peoples of all nations to access knowledge. Responding directly to sustained opinion from the developed world of the absence of a need for an international convention, Algeria spoke about the need for balance and uniformity in regulations. This balance between the right to access knowledge and to protect intellectual property is often achieved through the concept of limitations and exceptions. This balance also requires uniformity because conflicting cross-border norms in our digitally borderless world would render the ameliorative effects of limitations and exceptions moot. Further, the Berne Convention has proved to be of minimal help since interpretations have emerged of its dissonance with the tools needed for distance education. Therefore, in order to cover the digital dimension of limitations and exceptions, an international treaty is critical. In the words of the Algerian delegate, “We know that the balance between Intellectual Property rights and public interest are generally translated by exceptions and limitations. Unfortunately in the area of education and scientific research, national legislation does not seek this balance in a uniform and comprehensive manner.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The delegate also responded to concerns about the text proposed by the African Group. The proposal, he said, was a text-oriented tool to find an apt balance. Further, it was also imbibed with a certain degree of flexibility to allow for its adaption to the needs of development as understood by nations, various kinds of copyright protections and various treaties in literary and artistic property. Furthermore, the African Group wished for this text, if adopted, to move on the principle of consensus and expressed a willingness to incorporate any constructive concerns that delegates may have in order to stay true to the ideal of consensus-based diplomacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A number of developing and developed countries supported the need for greater discussion at the international paradigm on the topic of limitations and exceptions, and also the swift adoption of an international instrument in this respect. <b>Kenya</b> and the <b>Islamic Republic of Iran</b> put their weight behind the African Group, emphasizing similar values of digitalization of information and communication, right to access knowledge, public interest and need for an international instrument. <b>Tunisia </b>also supported the notion that an international instrument would lead to the harmonization of standards and benefit the international community.<b><i> China</i></b> came out in strong support of further negotiations. <b>Russia</b> noted that it was in support of a single document for limitations and exceptions that covers within its ambit the entire gamut of protections discussed at this forum. Further, it also supported the contention of the Japanese delegation that the international instrument should not include contentious issues such as instance liability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is also pertinent to note that <b>Japan</b>, on behalf of Group B, came out against the idea of a treaty based approach to the negotiations, much preferring “constructive work on principles and updating of studies by the Secretariat”. The <b>European Union</b> submitted that the extant international copyright framework was both adequate and ideal for the needs of both the digital and analog world of education, research and needs of persons with other disabilities. The EU proceeds to draw a distinction between the needs of educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities vis-à-vis needs of persons with visual and print impairment. In drawing this distinction, it seeks to achieve principled coherence across its support for the Marrakech Treaty and its opposition to any treaty on limitations and exceptions. It expressed concern that the working document was not an accurate reflection of the views of those countries that were of the opinion that present negotiations should be confined to the sharing of national experiences. Given the diversity in domestic regulations, any international treaty should seek to achieve domestic regulatory harmony and then proceed, assuming that the need argument fails to hold water.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>Indian</b> delegate submitted that the discussions were in furtherance of earlier deliberation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. There was a dire need to understand libraries and education not in a parochial, institutional sense but in a broad and enabling manner to meet the needs of developing and least developed nations. Both the material and transmission should be covered in order for distance learning to be enabled in any meaningful manner. Further, it was also of the opinion that an expansion of ISP liability is needed, citing the IT Act in support of this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this point, the developing nations made their voice heard in opposition to the fundamental premise of the ongoing negotiations – that an international treaty is a worthwhile goal to work towards. <b>Poland</b>, on behalf of the CEBS Group, commecnced his statement by taking cognizance of the importance of educational and research institutions and activities in our society and economy. The delegate recognized the existence of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation. Proceedings from this premise, it was the view of the CEBS Group that the best way to hone this innovation is by establishing a robust and strong system of intellectual property. Further, it went on to draw the link between the critical activities of distance learning, collaborative research with the activities of publishing and other aspects of the creative sector. Copyright policies therefore have to also take into the account the economic and social effects of not enabling access to research. The CEBS Group argued for a balanced copyright approach. It went on to support the idea of each WIPO member incorporating enabling limitations and exceptions within their domestic copyright regimes through a mutual sharing of best practices and national experience using multilateral for a such as this one. It was of the belief that modern copyright systems should provide for efficacious licensing mechanisms that are flexible, supportive and enabling to education, research and teaching activities as well as the needs of persons with other disabilities. Supporting the values emphasized by the developing world does not necessarily require the adoption of a binding international instrument. It concluded that the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of limitations and exceptions should not come at the flexibility that is conventionally afforded to WIPO member states to determine their own educational, research and teaching policies and norms to enable the lived experience of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>United States</b> started by submitting their own document – SCCR/23/4 – on objectives and principle for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. The US chose to further the CEBS submission by underscoring the potency of the extant copyright regime – Berne Convention 1886 and WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996. Both have a balance between copyright and education and have the promotion of education, research and teaching as their stated goals. Therefore, notwithstanding the contention that they are anachronistic given the digitalization of information and communication, it is possible to accommodate contemporary needs within existing regimes. The US stated that it was of the opinion that finding common ground on principles and an examination of the diverse national treatment of the issue of limitations and exceptions would render a more productive, positive solution than foisting a treaty or international legal instrument on the domestic regimes of WIPO members. It was of the opinion that this would “permit progress by promoting steps forward on shared goals and principles while enhancing international understanding and maintaining flexibility at the national level. We do not support work towards a treaty.” It also went on to voice concerns about the inclusion of controversial and broad areas of protection within the rubric of the treaty – topics such as public health and ISP liability were causing much consternation to the delegate of the United States. A plethora of reasons were advanced by the US that articulated its layered opposition to this entire process. There was a concern that given fundamental differences of opinion, inclusion of contentious protection would be pernicious to the negotiation itself. It was also of the opinion that a lot of the provisions had only incidental relevance to the central question of education and rights of persons with other disabilities would distract the nations from the purpose of the proposed international instrument. This proliferation of protections would in turn harm the considerable economic, social and political capital invested in the negotiation process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Senegal</b> affirmed the idea of an international agreement on limitations and exceptions. It believed that the contemporary is far removed from the world in which the Berne Convention and extant international copyright regime was conceptualized. Therefore, Senegal was in favour of a flexible international instrument that responded to digitalization and was proactive rather than reflexive. <b>Sudan</b> also threw its weight behind the African Group proposal and offered a scathing critique of the exclusivist tendencies of the contemporary copyright regime. It called for “efforts to break the current situation faced by certain countries in communication or in building the infrastructure and bridging the digital gap.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Columbia</b>, on the other hand, spoke about the need to understand if there is a lacuna in the present international copyright regime and understand the implications of adding to existing corpus of limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this juncture, the Chair opened the floor for contributions from <b>civil society representatives</b>. <b>Knowledge Ecology International</b> focussed its submissions on three foci – specific exceptions, three-step test and the corporate system. KEI acknowledged the raft of protections for limitations and exceptions within existing copyright structures but articulated the need for specific exceptions. Further, it reasoned out the incompatibility of the Berne three-step test with the needs of contemporary knowledge creation, research and access. Transplanting the Berne Convention to this context would render it moot and have far-reaching pernicious consequences on the international community’s reactions to dire questions of access particularly in the developing and developed world. KEI acknowledged the underlying premise of US/EU/Group B objections to an international instrument by pointing out the difference in national treatment of limitations and exceptions. As a response to this legitimate concern, it suggested that complimentary confidence building measures such as a multi-stakeholder platform work alongside the treaty negotiations so as to ensure that it is an inclusive process that alienates no stakeholder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>IFRRO</b> came out in strong support of the position against an international treaty. It stated that in pursuit of limitations and exceptions, one must not lose sight of the legitimate rights that creators have over their work. Diluting that principle would do harm to the idea of copyright and by extension creative and innovative thought. In support of this contention, studies were cited that showed a causal link between IP protection and income of authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Centre for Internet and Society</b> underscored the value of universal access to education and knowledge. Information and communication technology in the contemporary carry the tantalizing prospect of the realization of this ideal without excessive expenditure. It is also critical for this access question to be all-inclusive, for “formal and informal institutions and for environments and in digital and non-digital formats”. The experience of developing and least developed nations is a feeling of exclusion from the silos of knowledge in the west and it falls upon the international community to disrupt these silos to ensure equitable access to knowledge and, as a consequence, power. Individuals in these countries not only have to spend more on each book but have to spend a higher proportion of household income on it vis-à-vis Western households. The present international copyright framework lacks the ability to facilitate the realization of this ideal for three reasons. <i>First</i>, the myopic and complex compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Convention. <i>Second</i>, the incompatibility of the three step test to contemporary limitations and exceptions. And finally, the need for harmonization of national practices and facilitation of cross-border exchange of information and knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On being called on by the <b>United States, Ecuador </b>and <b>Egypt</b>, it was decided that the Secretariat would study the possibility of a study on the ambit of copyright and related rights as also limitations and exceptions for persons with disability and from the perspective of learning concerns. It was also decided that the Secretariat would update regional studies on limitations and exceptions for educational, research and teaching institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next session, SCCR 27, would focus on a discussion on exceptions and limitations with a focus on libraries and archives.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Draft Conclusions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft conclusions to this year’s SCCR was put up by the Chair for comments by all members. Belarus and CEBS fully supported the text and praised it for its balanced approach. The United States also supported it but requested an edit to Paragraph 6 Line 4 – a ‘to be defined’ in parenthesis after the words ‘on demand transmissions’. India expressed gratitude that everyone’s views were taken into account in the draft conclusions and asked for two edits. It stated that parts of the discussion on Article 9 were absent from the text. Further, the words beneficiaries in the draft conclusions was included when it had no definition in the document. Finally, it suggested that the word last line in paragraph 5 be changed to might or may. The Chair responded to India’s concerns on paragraph 5 by directing attention to the word ‘if’ in the text. Ecuador and Brazil both supported India’s opinion that the word should be may or might and not should. India submitted that this is not simply an editorial or cosmetic change but one that reflected a substantive issue. Ecuador also stated that countries might in the future want to include internet transmissions and the word should conditions the negotiations, lending it a restrictive air. Brazil also stated that it was crucial for the text to be both balanced and reflective of every stakeholder’s concerns. India stated that this was a demand from two or three groups. The lack of consensus on this point implies that the word should be may and not should. The EU, US, Japan, Switzerland and Poland (on behalf of the CEBS) supported the text <i>in toto</i>- a tacit snub to India’s suggestion. Italy stated that the word ‘if’ in the text provides the kind of flexibility that India is seeking and that altering the word should to may would rob the provision of meaning and be grammatically grotesque. Looking for alternatives, India also requested that the words ‘at least’ be deleted in order for some aspect of its concerns to be taken into account. Belarus characterized the text as entirely factual and accurate portrayal of the negotiations that took place-gave its support to the entire text. The Chair then offered an explanation of the terminology and showed how the wording allowed for both possibilities of inclusion and exclusion of transmission over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian then turned attention to the lack of a definition to the word beneficiaries. The Chair acknowledged India’s concerns and accepted the US suggestion to add the words ‘to be defined’ after both beneficiaries and on demand transmissions. Brazil also suggested traditional broadcasting/cablecasting or broadcasting/cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as possible ways to word the text. The EU requested the Chair for some language suggestions on how best to resolve this. The proposals (and not issues, after a request from India) on Articles 5,6,7,9 and 12 were added to the annex. After the incorporation of all these concerns and compromises, the Chair approved this section.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries and Archives</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, the United States made two suggestions. <i>First</i>, that the word may be removed from paragraph 18 as it detracta from the nature of the deliberation on that point. <i>Second</i>, the inclusion of the phrase “other proposals submitted” in paragraph 21. Brazil stated that it stood for the draft conclusions to be a clear picture of the positions adopted by WIPO members. In this light, it called for the inclusion of the names of member states that wished to discuss national laws in paragraph instead of the nebulous phrase ‘some member states’. He also requested a clarification on the last line of paragraph 16. Trinidad and Taboga indicated that it was adopting a flexible approach; it supported the suggestions by the US and Brazil but were also willing to work with the text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union wanted the word ‘also’ to be removed from paragraph 14. It also suggested that the final sentence of paragraph 16 be “these studies will serve as information and work resources for the committee”. Ecuador agreed with the US working document. It was of the opinion that the document should better reflect a spirit of compromise. On limitations and exceptions for museums, given the study reflected in the plenary for persons with other disabilities – there was a discrepancy between the discussions and the text. One was with the understanding that it was subject to the availability of resources while the other implied that it was mandatory in nature. The EU wanted licensing to be included in the text. The US thanked Ecuador for working out a compromise on the language and accepted it. Algeria expressed its desire to stick to the language proposed by the Chair on paragraph 13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Brazilian delegate called for flexibility on paragraph 14 in light of the proposal by the EU delegation on the point of discussion on national laws. The United States responded that it didn’t quite follow the position being adopted by the Brazilian delegate on paragraph 14 and much preferred a return to the text originally adopted by the Chair. Egypt pointed out the possible confusion that could emerge between paragraph 16 and 21, and in light of this expressed a willingness to engage in a full scale discussion on proposals from Canada and the EU. The EU responded directly to paragraph 14 in particular. It spoke out against the idea of listing the WIPO members that asked for a discussion on national laws as this would be against WIPO practice both in other parts of the same document as well as in other deliberations. EU stated that it saw no need to list out WIPO members and stood firmly against it. Brazil responded with a modicum of alarm at the opposition to the simple proposal to introduce the elements of precision in a document that is meant to be factual. It is far better for readers to understand the precise picture rather than having a general understanding of issues. Italy, Belarus and Greece threw their collective weight behind the EU opposition to this. All stated that this would be highly inappropriate and would amount to the singling out of the EU and other nations that took a stance, something that they didn’t see a need for. The US proposed a compromise where instead of naming the member states, ‘some member states’ would be used. Brazil said that this term was not just nebulous but could give the wrong impression to future delegates of the precise number of states that wished for discussion on national laws. Ecuador played the role of the voice of reason and stated that the progress of negotiations shouldn’t be hampered because of such a cosmetic set of differences. There was no need for the level of precision that was exemplified by the naming of WIPO members. Instead, it stated that it advocated for a general references to nations that asked for a discussion on national laws. This general reference was supported by Algeria and finally adopted by the Chair as a compromise between the opposing factions. On paragraph 16, the Chair called for the part on limitations and exceptions on museums to be deleted with the understanding that there would be an update by Professor Kenneth Cruz that would include all aspects of this issue. On paragraph 14, the Chair was in favour of the compromise suggested by the United States. It stated that in using the word ‘some’ no particular number or indication thereof was intended and that caveat was always there; instead what was only meant through the word ‘some’ was that the number of was more than one. Asked for Brazil to show some flexibility in this situation. Egypt raised the important issue of not conflating the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the proposed instrument and the desire to have discussions on national laws. It stated that in case both were being included, they be mentioned in separate paragraphs because a conflation would lead to misplaced conclusions being drawn.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deliberations on paragraph 16 ensued and the Chair clarified that on paragraph 16, the first and third sentence were being retained while the second was done away with. Ecuador asked for thereto be no confusion between studies on limitations and exceptions and those on museums. Its objection does not extend to the latter. The Chair suggested that all references to museums be deleted. Algeria wanted the words on preparation not being delayed to be retained and applied to all studies being proposed. US agreed with the Chair’s proposal but added that perhaps a separate study on limitations and exceptions on museums be included. Algeria insisted that this principle be applicable to all studies and not just studies on museums. The Chair stated that a separate study on limitations and exceptions for museums be included with the understanding that this would not delay general discussions on limitations and exceptions. The last sentence was also retained. With this, deliberations on this topic were closed.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations and Exceptions For Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other Disabilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union delegate stated that it was in support of the inclusion of the point on licensing as an appropriate point in the text. Sharing Algeria’s concern, it also called for the deletion of the word ‘understood’ in paragraph 23. Algeria had earlier raised a problem with the use of the word ‘understood’, preferring the phrase ‘agreed on’. The EU also called for the text to be accurate reflection of the negotiations. Brazil responded to the concerns of the EU delegate by stating that he would not be in support of a suggestion that this document not be the basis for future work on this topic. Ecuador supported Brazil’s point on this being a text-based negotiations and that this should be the basis for future deliberations. Brazil also expressed a bewilderment at the EU insistence of the inclusion of the point on licensing. It asked for its relevance in an agreement on educational institutions; a clarification was sought from the EU. The EU responded that it was of the opinion that we’re dealing with related subjects that deserve equal treatment. In this context, since licensing was included in the previous agreement, it must also be reflected in these conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Egypt supported the Chair’s language in paragraph 23. Further, it went on to attempt a compromise by suggesting that this text be not <i>the</i> basis for future text-based work but <i>a </i>basis. This would lend the issue a degree of much-needed flexibility. The US, on the side, supported the EU on including licensing schemes. The EU responded favourably to the compromise suggested by Egypt and said that a text where the word <i>the</i> is replaced by <i>a</i> is one that is agreeable to the EU.</p>
<p>The Chair outlined the three issues as</p>
<ul>
<li>The word ‘the’ in Item 27</li>
<li>The inclusion of the point on licensing and the tussle between the EU (arguing for inclusion, supported by the US) and Brazil (against the inclusion).</li>
<li>The point of this being the basis for future text-based negotiations and the compromise suggested by Egypt and accepted by the EU.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A compromise was worked out on licensing where the words “but other delegations do not see it that way” be included as a rider. Differences on points 1 and 3 were also ironed out as the Egyptian compromise was accepted. On this point, the third section was approved and deliberations came to an end.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Other Matters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was announced that the reports of the Stakeholders’ Platform – SCCR/26/5 and SCCR/26/7 – be put up on the web page. Finally, suggestions were wielded and discussed for future meetings of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was agreed that SCCR 27 would be dedicated to the protection of broadcasting organizations (two-and-half days), limitations and exceptions (two days) and conclusions and discussions on future work (half a day).</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 1 of 3).</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 2 of 3) </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-04-01T09:48:59ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 2 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 2 of 3) summarizes Days 3 and 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.
</b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes</h2>
<h3><b>Day 3</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair commenced proceedings by noting the need to take stock of the work done over the course of the first two days of proceedings. He stated that we needed to see the points of agreement as well as sticking points that persisted in order to chart a path towards resolution. There was an urgent need for clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The floor was opened to Delegations and Regional Groups. The document before the countries is the one on draft conclusions for the discussions surrounding the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> starts by expressing its support for the document before it and is ready to engage with any proposals that nations might have on it. <span>Poland </span>wanted the wording changed to broadcasting an cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense, but expressed its support for the document otherwise. A few other delegations, such as the one from Trinidad and Tobago, also expressed unease at the terminology of ‘traditional broadcasting organizations” in the document and much preferred broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. Notwithstanding these concerns, there was considerable support for the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU wants its discussions on transmissions over the internet to also be included as a part of the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>Libraries and Archives</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago expressed its full support for the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. They were keen to “close this gap to strengthen the copyright system as well as the human and collective rights for the benefit of creators and users alike”. It stated that the progress made in this regard was entirely consistentwith the Millennium Development Goals and the Development Agenda of WIPO. The CEBS group also came out in support of this framework. Further, it added that it would benefit greatly from the sharing of national experiences in this matter. It was stated that the modern copyright system should have a licensing system that is supportive of libraries, archives and other every day research. CEBS was sceptical however of the need to enter into any sort of international treaty in this regard. The delegate from Bangladesh pointed out the acute need for this limitation and exception particularly from the perspective of a developing nation in dire need of free flow of information. In this context, the Indian delegate was invited to make comments. The EU put on record its opposition to any sort of binding international instrument in this regard, and they wished to see this desire reflected in the title of the document. Iran called for the commencement of text-based negotiation since it was fairly clear that there was a need for an international instrument in this matter. Colombia concluded by stating that access to knowledge should be the guiding principle for the exceptions and limitations. It was very important for the libraries to fulfil the public interest for there to be copyright protection to its activities. It stresses however the need to continue to provide incentive and legitimate copyright protection even within this framework.</p>
<h3><b>Day 4</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions continued on the first topic of preservation as found in the SCCR/26/3 which focusses on exceptions and limitations enabling libraries and archives. For this session, the Chair outlined the issue up for comments as the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Azerbaijan</span>, speaking for the first time, stated that it took cognizance of the importance of exceptions and limitations and supported an international instrument on it. The purpose of limitations and exceptions should be to allow librarians and archives to preserve the documents. The documents protected should be used solely for research purposes and must be in accordance with fair practice. <span>Australia</span> clarified the role of preservation to be the continuing availability of physical and digital works already held in the collections of a library or archive for the benefit of present or past users. Critical to be very specific when talking about preservation in order to prevent the proliferation of rights. It stated that it was yet to be convinced of the need for an international instrument. <span>Belarus</span> noted that it supported the need for an international legislation. It supported the formulation of rules in this regard on the basis of the three step test, in order to maintain the balance of interests at play. It is imperative that strict rules of interpretation are employed while introducing this into domestic legislation in order to avoid ambiguous approaches that will lead to the abuse of the freedoms codified. The non-commercial and non-profit making nature of libraries and archives were emphasized. In explaining the merits of the three step test that would facilitate the entry of this international document into domestic law, <span>Poland</span> shared its national experiences in this regard with the group. <span>Brazil </span>suggested that the concern of proliferation of works voiced by many countries could be resolved by engaging in deliberations that result in clear definitions. It suggested that the intervention made by Canada be made into an annex as a subject that can discussed in the text in the future. <span>Russia</span> noted that the Berne Convention is the bedrock of international intellectual property and copyright law and coupled with reference to national legislation would help in reaching a common understanding on preservation. <span>Morocco </span>was in support of an international legislation since dealing with the problem nationally would be woeful piecemeal approach. <span>Senegal</span> pointed out definitional issues that were plaguing the discussion. If there was no common ground on the idea of a library and an archive, then the discussions on exceptions and limitations would not break any new ground. Therefore, the discussions appeared to be proceeding on two tracks – nature and scope of the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and the need for an international instrument that went beyond national legislation. The Chair opened comments on the latter track since that is foundational. The <span>United States</span> reiterated its opposition to any agreement that transcended national legislation. It also wished to introduce a bit of complexity in its discussions by pointing out that its domestic copyright law had no understanding of a library or archive. Therefore, it was going to be difficult to come to an understanding at the international level when national legislations themselves have not reached that point in their trajectory. Both El Salvador and Ecuador tacitly stated that they were in favour of an international legislation by continuing the discussion on merits. El Salvador opined that there was some degree of good faith involved and that was unavoidable in the pursuit of the desire to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. <span>Greece </span>stated that limitations and exceptions should only be applicable when an additional copy is not available in the market. Significantly, it stated that libraries and archives could enter into agreements with the rights holders by themselves. A flexible international framework was what Greece was aiming at, not an international legislation that went beyond national legislation. Both Greece and the EU suggested using the EU Copyright Directive as a starting point for defining libraries and archives. It asked for the flexibility it already had within the EU framework to be respected. <span>Italy</span> stated that it saw no international interest in a transnational agreement on exceptions and limitations. <span>India</span> emphasized the point that there was an international interest in preserving the culture of countries. The international dimension was in the context of cross-border cultural exchange. <span>Congo</span> came out in support of an international agreement as well. There was some degree of opposition from Greece that questioned India on why either manuscripts on cross-border cultural exchange had anything to do with preservation. In its opinion, those two goals could be achieved even without the formation of an international agreement on exceptions and limitations. India responded by clarifying that it did not use the example about ancient manuscripts in the context of copyright but the existence of an international interest in the matter of preservation. The issue of preservation of works within a library are for present and future use. This use, in today’s globalized world, is not just for the citizens of that country but for researchers the world over. In order to allow for thus cultural exchange, it was imperative that the copyright of the work not come in the way. Hence, there was the need for an international, and not merely national, legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On France’s concern about Ecuador’s vague understanding of fair use, Ecuador clarified that this would be the same as in the Berne Convention and the three step test would apply. Finland, Jordan and Senegal then shared their countries’ national experience in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair concluded the discussion on the first topic by articulating what he saw as a principle that is in the common agreement of all. In order to ensure that libraries and archives can develop their public service of the preservation of works in order to preserve knowledge and heritage, we need exceptions and limitations. Certain circumstances and guarantees are yet to be discussed and disagreements persist but none that threaten the need for a discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 2 – Right of Reproduction and Safeguarding of Copies</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and the United States.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>EU</span> opened the discussion with the suggestion that the title of this topic should only be focussed on the right to reproduction. This was in light of the nature of the proposals made by the various groups and nations. <span>Ecuador</span> situated the debate on the right to reproduction within the broader framework of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was imperative, it stated, that a right for libraries be carved out in order to facilitate the important social role they discharge. <span>France</span> added to the concern voiced by the EU in stating that it felt that safeguarding was already covered within the ambit of the previous topic. <span>Brazil</span> responded to this by drawing a clear cut distinction between the first and second topics. The right of reproduction was applicable to libraries while safeguarding was for archives. Both the role of the library and that of the archive merit discussion, it was emphasized, and both should equally be included in the second topic. <span>Senegal </span>supported the idea of an inclusive topic that mentions both the right of reproduction and safeguarding of copies. It stated that a distinct right of safeguarding was crucial at a time when vital cultural artefacts are vulnerable to destruction. The example of the museum in Timbuktu that was ravaged by militants leading to the irreparable loss of invaluable manuscripts was cited in support.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Italy</span> voiced a two-pronged opposition to the very idea of articulating a right to reproduction. <i>First</i>, it stated that allowing for reproduction, even in University libraries, would open the floodgates to copyright violations. It was afraid that copyrighted material would be reproduced within the library which would then lead to that material appearing on for a not envisaged within the rubric of the treaty. <i>Second</i>, it was against the extension of the idea of research to private research. The transmission of the reproduced material to third parties would lead to a loss of revenue to the rights holder in question. To Italy, the latter was even more egregious since the former at least allowed for the possibility of, via the money paid for the reproduction, monetary compensation of the rights holder. The latter however had no room for this to be effected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> supported the EU position on the exclusion of safeguarding from the present discussions. Further, Belarus stressed that it wanted a caveat to the exception for scientific and educational research. It wanted the kind of material that would fall under the exception to be limited to “just articles or short works or excerpts from books” since “the student or researcher probably doesn’t need the whole book”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Brazil</span> assuaged the concerns of the right holders by pointing out that its proposal in paragraph 2 makes national legislation the focus. Fuether, it added that with respect to the international dimension to the rights, the GA had already stated that there would be an “international legal instrument”. Therefore, the multilateral nature of both the subject matter and scope of the negotiations is beyond the pale of doubt.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative from the International Council of Museums noted that all of the rights were equally applicable to museums as well. Very often, museums suffered from a lack of uniformity and harmonization of rules across multiple jurisdictions. This was the need it saw for an international treaty on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair summed up the discussions. Despite the emergence of any sort of consensus, most countries had agreed for a need to have exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Further, a right to reproduction of works for libraries was recognized to facilitate the reproduction of certain works under certain conditions for the purposes of research. The scope of none of these terms have been agreed upon by states nor has there been much agreement on whether this extends to distribution of the material and to what extent. The EU and the USA mentioned that they did not think there was a need for an international agreement on this and the GA wording was not binding in any sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 3 – Legal Deposit</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group and India on this. This was not received very warmly by the delegates. Most thought it was out of the place in the current discussions. The US opposed the need for any discussion at the international level since the issues in question were codified in domestic law to varying degrees. Therefore, it could not be said that it was “ripe for harmonization”. Colombia found the concept of legal deposit “strange” in a document on exceptions and limitations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 4 – Library Lending</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, India, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ecuador</span> explained in great detail that the reason behind this was to allow for libraries to lend copyrighted works to its users or to another library. Very often, research necessitates the movement of the physical copy of a particular work. In other instances, the presence of a particular copyrighted work in a specific library has great symbolic and cultural value, apart from its patent value for research activities. In furtherance of its earlier objections, <span>Italy</span> explained that lending could also lead to egregious copyright violations. Along these lines, it objected to the idea of digital lending since it went against the grain of lending because returning a digital copy was not possible or meaningful. The International Federation of Libraries, representative from civil society, pointed out that there were technological tools that would prevent the unintended and harmful proliferation of lent digital copies. Digital lending could take place by passing along a password encrypted digital copy that would expire after a set period of time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Greece </span>furthered the harm that this would have on copyrighted works by asking why anybody would want to get the original if lending is applied to the realm of films via digital transmission. Responding to the African Group proposal, it asked how this was in conformity with the three step test. The US responded by drawing a positive causal link between lending and commercial purchase of the product. Again, the Chair summed up by stating that agreement was that exceptions and limitations must extend to library lending but agreement on the scope and nature of this extension evaded consensus.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3) </a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T04:52:53ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:51:38ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:44:21ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:08ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:37ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:34:22ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:33:29ZFileWIPO Regional Seminar on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1
<b>Anubha Sinha participated in the WIPO “Regional Seminar for the Asia Pacific Group on Libraries, Archives, Museums and Educational & Research Institutions in the Field of Copyright”, which was held on April 29 and 30, 2019, in Singapore.
</b>
<p>For more info about the event, <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=433213">click here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2019-06-05T13:34:54ZNews ItemWIPO reaches agreement on treaty for blind
https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind
<b>Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups. </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by Pankaj Mishra was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/zirXp3IC1rTtAFOd2O4fYL/WIPO-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind.html">published in Livemint</a> on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Experts such as <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham </a></span>of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind'>https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-07-01T09:59:29ZNews ItemWill the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?
https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist
<b>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/28/will-the-copyright-law-help-the-starving-artist/">This article by Margherita Stancati was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.</p>
<p>"I remember when Ustad Bismillah Khan" – a legendary Indian classical musician – "came to me and said that he did not have money to pay his rent," Indian Human Resources Minister Kapil Sibal <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bollywood-cheers-as-lok-sabha-passes-copyright-bill_1692466">recently told Parliament</a>.</p>
<p>At the time, Mr. Sibal said he solved the problem by writing him a check.</p>
<p>The government hopes that changes introduced to India’s 1957 Copyright Act will allow composers and other artists to do away with such acts of charity. Parliament passed the bill amending the copyright act last week.</p>
<p>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</p>
<p>Earlier, "artists would typically give all the rights to the producer. It was called a work for hire," says Anish Dayal, a Supreme Court lawyer who specializes in media and entertainment legislation.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">amendments</a> to the act means that "even if they want to give rights to producers, they can’t," adds Mr. Dayal.</p>
<p>The way the law phrases this is a little confusing. An amendment to section 18 of the act says that authors of literary or musical works featured in movies shall "receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis" with others who have copyright over the work (such as producers.) It’s not clear whether "equal basis" means 50% or whether it depends on the number of people with whom the royalties are shared.</p>
<p>The amended law also makes it compulsory for radio and broadcasters to pay royalties every time they air a recording.</p>
<p>The biggest impact of these changes will be on India’s film industry, especially on the lyricists and composers of Bollywood music, who have long lobbied for rights over their work.</p>
<p>Before the amendments were given a green light, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2_dw7OmS2U&feature=youtu.be">Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar described the condition artists worked in as "bonded labor</a>." Recently addressing lawmakers in the upper house of Parliament, where he holds an honorary seat, Mr. Akhtar shared a long list of cases of famed Indian musicians and composers who lived and died in penury. He named Shailendra, a popular 1950s Hindi lyricist, and Omkar Prasad Nayyar, a composer of movie scores.</p>
<p>For Paromita Vohra, a Mumbai-based documentary filmmaker, said changes to the law mark a first step towards making art production “more equal” by giving artists more rights over their work. "It’s about time," says Ms. Vohra, who last year made a <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/02/10/the-partners-in-copyright-crime/">film on copyright in the world of art</a>.</p>
<p>"Those who have the money are more powerful than those who make the arts. The act recognizes this, it addresses a power balance," she adds, describing this as a "philosophical change" in the law.</p>
<p>But she says this alone is not enough. "Lawyers are good at circumventing the law," she claims. Still, artists willing to fight for their rights "now have the law to fall back on," she adds.</p>
<p>Stronger labor unions, Ms. Vohra says, would make it easier for artists to make the most of the new legislation. "When that happens, I think the law will be very helpful."</p>
<p>Not all were pleased with the changes on royalties. <a class="external-link" href="http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250070212">Adarsh Gupta of Saregama</a>, a music production company, said the law is "extremely unfair to the film and music industry" and that it paves the way to litigation.</p>
<p>Other changes introduced in the act include tighter regulations on cover versions, including a clause that raises the time period after which covers are legally allowed from two to five years.</p>
<p>Critics say these restrictions are excessive and at odds with art produced in the digital era.</p>
<p>"This ignores present-day realities," Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet & Society wrote in his <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012" class="external-link">analysis of the amended copyright bill</a>. He used the example of the hit tune Kolaveri Di, which was covered countless times. "The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars," he adds.</p>
<p>The act also removes copyright requirements for Braille or for other works of art adapted for people with disabilities.</p>
<p>What the amended law does not include is a clause that many in the <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/01/13/is-the-copyright-bill-bad-for-indian-readers/">Indian publishing industry feared may have made them redundant</a>. The proposed amendment would have allowed non-Indian publishing houses distribute their books in India, removing the territorial exclusivity of local publishers. This clause did not make it in the final version of the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist'>https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-29T03:46:23ZNews ItemWhy Parallel Importation of Books Should Be Allowed
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books
<b>There has been much controversy lately with some publishers trying to stop the government from amending s.2(m) of the Indian Copyright Act, clarifying that a parallel import will not be seen as an "infringing copy". This blog post argues that the government should, keeping in mind the larger picture, still go ahead and legalise parallel imports.</b>
<p>[Updated Wednesday, February 2, 2011, to respond to <a class="external-link" href="http://dearddsez.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-abrahams-rebuttal-to-why.html">Thomas Abraham's extensive and thoughtful rebuttal</a> of the earlier version this post.]</p>
<p>First off, here is the controversial clause, with the proposed amendment (the insertion of a "proviso", in legalese) being emphasised in bold font-face:</p>
<h2>The amendment<br /></h2>
<blockquote>
<p>2(m) "infringing copy" means,—</p>
<p> (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;</p>
<p> (ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;</p>
<p> (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;</p>
<p> (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;</p>
<p><strong>Provided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some claim that this amendment to s.2(m) ("provided that... copy") has the potential to
destroy the publishing industry. The most lucid explanation of this was in a recent op-ed by Thomas Abraham
in the Hindustan Times, very ominously titled <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/652735.aspx">The Death of Books</a>. However it seems to us that the publishing
industry—especially foreign publishers with distributorships in India—don't want to open
themselves up to competition in the distribution market, and are opposing this most commendable move.</p>
<h2>What is parallel importation?<br /></h2>
<p>Before getting into explanations of why allowing for parallel importation is good, and how the arguments otherwise fall short, we should examine what parallel importation is. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Parallel import, insofar as copyright is concerned, involves an “original” copyright product (i.e. produced by or with the permission of the copyright owner in the manufacturing country) placed on the market of one country, which is subsequently imported into a second country without the permission of the copyright owner in the second country. For instance, the copyright owner of a book produced in India places the book on the market in India. A trader buys 100 copies of the book from India and imports them to China without the permission of the copyright owner of the book in China. This act of the trader bringing the books into China is called parallel import, the legality of which depends on the copyright law of the importing country (namely China in this example)." (Consumers International, <em>Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws</em> 23 (2006).)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some fear-mongers try to equate parallel importation with
'anarchy' in markets, and some confusedly claim that this amendment would allow <em>infringing</em> copies of books
would be permitted. That is simply not true. For parallel importation to be said to happen, the sale must itself be legal. If it is an an illegally sold copy (a pirated copy of a book, for instance) that is imported, then it will count as a black market import—not as a parallel import. Allowing for parallel imports will only dismantle
monopoly rights over importation, and the amendment makes
that amply clear.</p>
<h2>Harms on existing books of not allowing parallel importation</h2>
<p>Libraries/second-hand bookshops/consumers have no way of knowing if a book was originally imported legally or not, since there is no easy way of telling a parallel-ly imported copy apart from a exclusively imported copy. If one of them, even unknowingly buys/sells a foreign edition about which they am not sure and it turns out it was not legally imported (and there are literally thousands of such books, and I personally own at least a couple dozen foreign editions bought from various second-hand bookshops) then they are committing copyright infringement.</p>
<p>This precisely was argued by the library associations and others in <em>amici</em> briefs to the US Supreme Court in the <em>Costco v. Omega</em> case. For instance, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the the American Library Association, the Association of College
and Research Libaries, and the Association of Research Libraries in
Support of Petitioner</a> argues that:</p>
<blockquote>By restricting the application of [the first sale doctrine] to copies manufactured in the United States, the Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens the ability of libraries to continue to lend materials in their collections. Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit’s narrowing of [the first sale doctrine] only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a “lending license” whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States. <br /></blockquote>
<p>and, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the Public Knowledge, American Association of Law Libraries,
American Free Trade Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association in
Support of Petitioner</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>The uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding [against parallel importation] will harm used bookstores, libraries, yard sales, out-of-print book markets, movie and video game rental markets, and innumerable other secondary markets. Owners of copyright works or goods containing copyrighted elements manufactured abroad will be unable to dispose of these products without authorization at the risk of liability under copyright law’s extensive damages provisions. Furthermore, the chilling effects of the Ninth Circuit’s holding will extend beyond works manufactured abroad. Owners of copies of works will be unable to determine whether they are protected by [the first sale doctrine], as they will not always know where their goods were manufactured. Copyright holders will have little incentive to make clear the location of manufacturing of their copyrighted works,3 as greater uncertainty means a greater ability to sell the right to distribute the goods within the United States. Secondary market sellers who cannot afford to purchase this right will be unable to do business unless they are prepared to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation with an uncertain result. A wide variety of important secondary markets in copyrighted works and goods with copyrighted elements will suffer without the protection of the first sale doctrine.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Benefits of parallel importation</h2>
<h3>Dismantling distribution monopoly rights<br /></h3>
<p>The benefits that will accrue from allowing for parallel importations
are huge. Currently a large percentage of educational books in India
are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in
importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition,
the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an
authorization to import books—the licence raj that currently exists
would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit. This is
especially important for students and for libraries because even when
low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.</p>
<p>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. And if that goes away after first sale internationally, that's not a bad thing at all.</p>
<p>Generally, there are two main benefits of allowing for parallel importation: faster introduction of the latest international releases into the domestic country, and lowered prices by decreasing the costs imposed by a monopoly right over distribution.</p>
<p>All the foreign books that an online bookseller like Flipkart delivers in India are procured from international sources. Without parallel importation, Flipkart will have to ask for permission from the book publishers for each foreign book each time it makes a sale. This would cripple Flipkart's business model.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Helping book publishers</h3>
<p>Book publishers will be benefited by parallel importation, just as they are benefited by the existence of libraries and second-hand book stores. Libraries and second-hand book stores help with market segmentation, providing access to people who can't afford expensive books at much lower rates, often free. However, the existence of second-hand book stores in almost every city in India—I have personally bought second-hand books everywhere from Jhansi (Leo Tolstoy's <em>War and Peace</em>) to Delhi's Darya Ganj market (Edmund Wilson's <em>Letters on Literature and Politics</em>)—does not prevent me from buying books first hand. Indeed, Wilson's <em>Letters</em> is out of print, and cannot be bought in a store like Crosswords or Gangaram's.</p>
<p>Why do I emphasise second-hand books and libraries? They are artefacts of something variously known as the "first sale doctrine" or the "doctrine of exhaustion" in copyright law: After the first sale of a book, subsequent sales, rentals, etc., cannot be controlled by the copyright owner. Parallel importation is simply a matter of applying this doctrine to the first sale of the book internationally rather than its first sale in India. </p>
<p>Thus we see that the existence of second-hand books, libraries, and parallel imports, are all dependent on the same rule of copyright law: the first sale doctrine. This doctrine is enshrined in s.14(b)(iv) of the Indian Copyright Act, and has been interpreted by the Delhi High Court to mean first sale in India. The present amendment changes that to mean first sale internationally.</p>
<p>The introduction of the modern "public library" in the mid-19th century
led to a surge in literacy, readership, and book sales, and not a
decline. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that allowing parallel importations will lead to a decline in book sales.</p>
<h3>Helping libraries and the print-disabled<br /></h3>
<p>Even currently, many people buy books directly from abroad and have them shipped to India. This is especially necessary for libraries whose patrons—scholars and students—very often need access to the latest books. Currently, libraries often buy books from abroad from Amazon, Flipkart, Alibris, etc. Such acts, within a strict reading of the law, are not legal, since they fall afoul of s.51(b)(iv), since the import is not for the "private and domestic use" of the libraries. This is also of especial concern for organizations working with print-disabled individuals, since the number of books legally available domestically in formats accessible by the print-disabled is very small, and often need to be imported.</p>
<h3>Helping all consumers<br /></h3>
<p>An excellent report was prepared in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/publications/copyright-and-access-to-knowledge">2006 by Consumers International</a>, in which they studied the costs of textbooks in eleven countries, including India, by average purchasing power of each country's citizens, instead of absolute cost. Based on that study, and a detailed investigation of international treaties on copyright and the flexibilities allowed in them, Consumers International recommended that India should amend our law to make it clear that parallel importation of copyrighted works is legal (on page 51 of the report).</p>
<h2>Rebutting objections</h2>
<p>I will address a few specific objections raised by Mr. Abraham, Nandita Saikia, and others.</p>
<h3>1. Authors' won't lose out on royalties<br /></h3>
<p>Authors do not lose out on royalties because of parallel importation, just as they do not lose out on royalties because of libraries, nor because of second-hand book stores.
For parallel importation to take place, the books have to be purchased
legally, and that first sale itself ensures that authors are paid royalties. </p>
<p>Of
course, publishing contracts often have a clause that remaindered books will
not garner royalties. But in that case, the problem is not parallel importation,
but the overstocking and subsequent <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindering of books</a>. The authors wouldn't be paid (or would be paid very little) for remaindered books even if the books weren't imported into India. Parallel importation
does not in any way change that.</p>
<p><strong>Indian authors</strong></p>
<p>There is a worry that an Indian author would be hit if remaindered copies of his/her books started entering the Indian market. That would mean that foreign publishers had overstocked that Indian author's book, i.e., that the expectation from the book was much higher than the actual demand. If this happens infrequently, then the author hasn't much to worry about (since remainders aren't a big problem). If it happens frequently, then firstly the publisher should re-adjust to the market and realize that demand is low. Secondly, the author needs to worry more about quality of the book (and whether it caters to foreign audiences) than the possible effects that the availability of cheaper copies of that book would have.</p>
<h3>2. Remaindered books are in publishers' control<br /></h3>
<p>India has amongst the cheapest book prices in the world. Then why would book publishers be wary of even cheaper books overrunning the Indian market? The reason, Mr. Abraham tells us, is <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindered books</a>. He believes that remaindered books have the potential to destroy the Indian book
market. Remaindering of books has been happening for decades. If remaindered books haven't already
destroyed all book markets worldwide, then it is unlikely that they will
do so suddenly just because parallel importation of books is permitted
in India.</p>
<p>Remainders happen because of a miscalculation by the publisher: expecting more demand than was actually present. What happens with that excess stock is controlled by the publishers. They can choose to pulp them, burn them, or even push them into other channels of commerce that Mr. Abraham points out exist in the mature, frontline markets where remaindering happens:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the reason why they have not destroyed book markets worldwide is because the mature markets exist with multiple strands (chains and high street stores, independents, direct sellers, online sellers, and supermarkets)—so a direct seller will sell the same book a high street store is selling at a much reduced price without it affecting the business of each strand. Each strand is discrete and price sensitivity does not matter the same way. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since those multiple strands of commerce exist, each of which would enable the seller to get a better profit (being in a developed country) than in India, there is no reason to fear overrunning of the market with remainders.</p>
<h3>3. Dumping of books should be tackled separately<br /></h3>
<p>An extension of the remaindered books concern is that of India becoming a land where all books will be dumped. This hasn't happened in case of countries like New Zealand,
Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Cameroon, Pakistan, Argentina, Israel, Vietnam, South Korea,
Japan, and a host of other countries, all of which allow for parallel importation of books. In a 1998 judgment, the United States Supreme Court, <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">some parallel imports of copyrighted goods were legal</a>.
That ruling did not cause the downfall of the US book market, despite
cheaper books being available outside the US. Australia has allowed for
parallel importation of books in one form or another since 1991 (when
the law was changed to allow for all parallel of all books that weren't
introduced in the Australian market within 30 days of it being released
elsewhere in the world). New Zealand did a study after removing the ban
on parallel importation, and declared that cheaper books were available
on a more timely basis than previously. None of these countries have
been overrun by grey market books.</p>
<p><strong>Customs laws are better suited</strong></p>
<p>Even assuming that this fear is well-founded, copyright law is not the best way to deal with the problem. Dumping of books should be regulated by customs laws (anti-dumping and countervailing duties). Using copyright law to regulate apprehended book dumping practices (which might not even happen) is like using a trawler hoping to catch only shrimp: it is naive to think that there won't be unintended <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bycatch">bycatch</a>, and the consequences can be disastrous for the knowledge environment in case of books.</p>
<p>Customs laws are more flexible because they are imposed by the executive, and unlike copyright law, can be more easily changed as per requirements. So even if copyright law allows for parallel importation of copyrighted works, a special case can be made out by publishers in case of trade publishing, for instance, and that can be targetted specifically by imposing duties. However, the inverse cannot happen, since we are not aware of any mechanism whereby libraries, consumers and others can get to 'override' the provision in the Copyright Act.</p>
<p>Additionally, these duties can be made to operate only if the book is already being sold in India; these duties can be made to operate only on new books. A ban on parallel importation, on the other hand will apply equally to books that are out of print, to books that the original copyright owner has not even granted an exclusive Indian distributorship and are not even being sold in India. It goes right to the heart of freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to receive information.</p>
<h3>4. Non-printing of low-priced editions for India because of "unsecure"
market won't happen<br /></h3>
<p>Parallel importation, which is what the amendment to s.2(m) allows for,
affects only importation. It does not in any way affect publication in
India or exports. Exporting low-priced Indian editions to countries which allow for parallel importation of books, is currently of doubtful legality. [Update: Earlier an incorrect claim was made in this post that such export was legal. The legal status is not that clear. While there is a Delhi High Court case that makes exports of low-priced editions illegal in the context of sale to the United States, it specifically states that the decision <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">does not depend on whether India allows for parallel importation or not</a>.] The
amendment does not change that position, for reasons explained at greater length <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">in a separate post</a>. The incentives to print
low-priced editions hence does not decrease. If anything it will increase
because currently books that are not available as low-priced editions
cannot be imported without exclusive licensing, and with a change in this position, the incentive to compete in the form of low-priced editions will increase.</p>
<p>Indeed, even before that 2009 Delhi High Court judgment prohibiting exports to the United States, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. And even before the 2005 Bombay High Court judgment prohibiting parallel imports, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. This won't change, regardless of the law, because India is an increasingly profitable and expanding market, and low-priced editions are a necessity in this market due to lower average income.</p>
<h3>5. Rhetoric flourish and the law: Open and closed markets<br /></h3>
<p>Mr. Abraham asks how many authors one can name from open markets like Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as a sign of the 'history of creativity' in each of these countries and territories. It might be just as well to ask how many authors he can name from closed markets like Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, and Ukraine. One's ability to name authors from a country has less to do with the open/closed nature of its market and more to do with one's general knowledge.</p>
<p>Additionally, the 'mature' markets which he wishes India to emulate—United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia—are more ambiguous on parallel importation than he would have us believe. In the United States, the legality of a segment of parallel importation of copyrighted goods reached the United States Supreme Court in <em><a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">Quality King v. L'anza</a></em> in 1998, in which the court held in favour of the importer. </p>
<p>The question reached the US Supreme Court again last year in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/costco-v-omega/"><em>Costco v. Omega</em></a>, but the court split on it 4-4, and <a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2010/12/16/costco-omega-libraries-and-copyright/">did not deliver a binding precedent on parallel importation</a>. Thus, for all intents and purposes, under copyright law, the United States is an open market. </p>
<p>In the United Kingdom, as per European Union law, <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/uk">parallel importation is permitted from anywhere within the EU</a>. And in Australia, parallel importation of parallel goods is largely allowed, with <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/australia">some conditions to encourage faster publishing in Australia of foreign books.</a></p>
<p>Most importantly, none of the markets held up as role models are developing countries. India is. This makes all the difference, as the Consumers International report underscores.</p>
<h2>Standing Committee consultations</h2>
<h3>Lack of wide consultation<br /></h3>
<p>On one point we are in complete agreement with Mr. Abraham, which is his point regarding lack of adequate consultation. While there was a good amount of consultation during the drafting stage, when a wide-ranging public consultation was held in 2006, this was not repeated in 2010 by the Standing Committee. Further, the Standing Committee only gave fifteen days for responses to its call for comments.</p>
<h3>Publishers were represented<br /></h3>
<p>While Mr. Abraham states that only the Authors Guild was represented before the Standing Committee, by going through the report prepared by it, we see that the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India were also called to testify before the Standing Committee. </p>
<h3>Libraries, students, consumers were not represented</h3>
<p>However, while the authors supported it, and the publishers opposed it, no one got to hear the voice of the readers, the students, the libraries, the book buyers. For instance, not a single consumer rights organization or library association was called before the Standing Committee. Internationally, organizations like Consumers International, the International Federation of Library Associations, and EIFL (an international library organization) are invited to meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization and their views are taken with seriousness as they are a very important part of the copyright environment.</p>
<h3>Department's and Standing Committee's reasoning</h3>
<p>We reproduce below four paragraphs from the Standing Committee's report, which elucidate many of the reasons for going in for this particular amendment.</p>
<blockquote>7.10<br />All the reservations/objections raised by the various stakeholders [including the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India, whose objections are quoted in an earlier paragraph of the report -ed.] were taken up by the Committee with the Department with the intent of having full understanding of the background necessitating the proposed amendment and its exact impact on the various stakeholders. As clarified by the Department, the main purpose of this amendment was to allow for imports of copyright materials (e.g. books) from other countries. It was in accordance with Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement relating to exhaustion of rights whereunder developing countries could facilitate access to copyright works at affordable cost. Exhaustion of rights (popularly called as parallel import) was a legal mechanism used to regulate prices of IPR protected materials. This was viable only if the price of the same works in the Indian market was very high when compared to the price in other countries from where it was imported to India. <br /><br />7.11<br />Committee's attention was drawn to the fact that majority of educational books used in India were imported from other countries particularly from US and EU. There was an increasing tendency by publishers to give territorial licence to publish the books at very high rates. The low price editions were invariably the old editions than the latest ones. This provision would compel the Indian publishers to price the works reasonably so that it would not be viable for a distributor to import same works to India from other countries. This would also save India foreign exchange on the payment of royalties (licence fee) by the Indian publishers to foreigners. <br /><br />7.12<br />Committee was also given to understand by the representatives of the publishing industry that Scheme of the Copyright Law was entirely different from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Patent Act, 1970. The application of the standards and principles of these two laws through the proposed amendment of section 2(m) would completely dismantle the business model currently employed, rendering several industries unviable. On a specific query in this regard the Department informed that the concept of international exhaustion provided in section 107 A of the Patent Act, 1971 and in section 30 (3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and in section 2 (m) of the copyright law were similar. This provision was in tune with the national policy on exhaustion of rights.<br /><br />7.13 <br />After analysing the viewpoints of all the stakeholders along with the clarifications given thereupon by the Department, the Committee is of the view that proposed inclusion of the proviso in the definition of the term 'infringing copy' seems to be a step in the right direction, specially in the prevailing situation at the ground level. <strong>The present practice of publishers publishing books under a territorial license, resulting in sale of books at very high rates cannot be considered a healthy practice.</strong> [Emphasis added.] The Committee also notes that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. It has been clearly specified that only those works published outside India with the permission of the author and imported into India will not be considered an infringed copy. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. <strong>Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law.</strong> [emphasis added.] The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to Government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed, i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>It is clear that allowing for parallel imports is not likely to hurt publishers, but will result in an expansion of the reading market. It is mainly foreign publishers' monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian
publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2019-02-01T17:41:26ZBlog Entry