The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 71 to 85.
Transcripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 25
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 25th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from November 19, 2012 to November 23, 2012.
</b>
<p>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 25 which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO</a> and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-1-november-19-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 1, November 19, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 2, November 20, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 3, November 21, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 4, November 22, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 5, November 23, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishersmitaLive BlogCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:58:55ZBlog EntrySuper Cassettes v. MySpace
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space
<b>The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Super Cassettes v. MySpace last July is worrying for a number of reasons. The court failed to appreciate the working of intermediaries online and disregard all pragmatic considerations involved. The consequences for free expression and particularly for file sharing by users of services online are especially unfavourable. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment<a href="#fn*" name="fr*">[*]</a>is extremely worrying since it holds MySpace liable for copyright infringement, <b>despite</b> it having shown that it did not know, and could not have known, about each instance of infringement; that it removed each instance of alleged infringement upon mere complaint; that it asked Super Cassettes to submit their songs to their song identification database and Super Cassettes didn't.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This, in essence, means, that all 'social media services' in which there is even a <b>potential</b> for copyright infringement (such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are now faced with a choice of either braving lawsuits for activities of their users that they have no control over — they can at best respond to takedown requests after the infringing material has already been put up — or to wind down their operations in India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Facts</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aside from social networking, MySpace facilitates the sharing of content between its users. This case concerns content (whose copyright vested in T-Series) was uploaded by users to MySpace’s website. It appears that tensions between MySpace and T-Series arose in 2007, when T-Series entered into talks with MySpace to grant it licenses in its copyrighted content, while MySpace asked instead that T-Series register with its rights management programme. Neither the license nor the registration came about, and the infringing material continued to be available on the MySpace website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specifically, T-Series alleged that cases for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51 (a) (ii) could be made out. Alleging that MySpace had infringed its copyrights and so affected its earnings in royalties, T-Series approached the Delhi High Court and filed a suit seeking injunctive relief and damages. In proceedings for interim relief while the suit was pending, the court granted an injunction, but, in an appeal by MySpace, added the qualification that the content would have to be taken down only on receipt of a specific catalogue of infringing works available on MySpace, rather than a general list of works in which T-Series held a copyright.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Defence</h2>
<p>While other arguments such as one around the jurisdiction of the court were also raised, the central issues are listed below:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Non-Specificity of Prayer<br />T-Series’ claim in the suit is for a blanket injunction on copyrighted content on the MySpace website. This imposes a clearly untenable, even impossible, burden for intermediaries to comply with.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge<br />MySpace argued that no liability could accrue to it on two counts. The first was that it had no actual or direct knowledge or role in the selection of the content, while the second was that no control was exercised, or was exercisable over the uploading of the content. Additionally, there was no possible means by which it could have identified the offending content and segregated it from lawful content, or monitored all of the content that it serves as a platform for.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediary status and Safe Harbour Protection<br />In relation to its status as an intermediary, MySpace raised several arguments. First, it argued that it had immunity under section 79 of the IT Act and under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (US DMCA). Another argument restated what is arguably the most basic tenet of intermediary liability that merely providing the platform by which infringement could occur cannot amount to infringement. In other words, the mere act of facilitating expression over internet does not amount to infringement. It then made reference to its terms of use and its institution of safeguards (in the form of a hash filter, a rights management tool and a system of take-down–stay-down), which it argued clearly reflect an intention to discourage or else address cases of infringement as they arise. MySpace also emphasized that a US DMCA compliant procedure was in place, although T-Series countered that the notice and take down system would not mitigate the infringement.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Relationship between MySpace and its Users<br />Taking from previous arguments about a lack of control and its status as an intermediary, MySpace argued that it was simply a licensee of users who uploaded content. The license is limited, in that MySpace is only allowed to alter user-generated content so as to make it viewable.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Outcomes</h2>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Infringement by Facilitation<br />The court concluded that infringement in terms of section 51 (a) (ii) had occurred in this case, since web space is a “place” in the terms required by the section and there were monetary gains in the form of ad revenue. The argument as to a lack of knowledge of infringement was also rejected on the ground that MySpace’s provision for safeguards against infringement clearly established a reason to believe that infringement will occur. Also referenced as evidence of knowledge, or at least a reason to believe infringement would occur, is the fact that MySpace modifies the format of the content before making it available on its website. It also tested for infringement by authorization in terms of section 14 read with section 51 (a) (i), but concluded that this did not arise here.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reading away section 79?<br />The court accepted the argument made by T-Series to the effect that sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act must be read together. Since section 79 would be overridden by section 81’s non-obstante, the effect would be that rights holders’ interests under the Copyright Act will erode intermediaries’ immunity under section 79. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Due Diligence<br />The court rejected the argument that the provision of due diligence or curative measures post-infringement would be sufficient. Specifically, the contention that the quantum of content being uploaded precludes close scrutiny, given the amount of labour that would be involved, was rejected. Content should not immediately be made available but must be subject to enquiries as to its title or to authentication of its proprietor before it is made available. In fact, it holds that, “there is no reason to axiomatically make each and every work available to the public solely because user has supplied them unless the defendants are so sure that it is not infringement.” (Paragraph 88).</li>
</ol> <ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is also an attempt to distinguish the Indian framework from the DMCA. While that law calls for post-infringement measures, it is argued that in India, on reading section 51 with section 55, the focus is on preventing infringement at the threshold. In response to the case that it would be impossible to do so, the court held that since the process here requires MySpace to modify the format of content uploaded to it to make it viewable, it will have a reasonable opportunity to test for infringement.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Analysis</h2>
<h3>Accounting for the Medium of Communication</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court’s analysis of the issues begins with a predictable emphasis on how the law of copyright would operate in the context of what is termed “internet computing”, peppered with trite statements about “the virtual world of internet” creating “complexit[ies]” for copyright law. The court appears to have entered into this discussion to establish that the notion of place in section 51 (a) (ii) should extend to “web space” but the statements made here only serve to contrast starkly against its subsequent failure to account for the peculiarities of form and function of intermediaries online. Had this line of argument been taken to its logical conclusion, after the character of the medium had been appreciated, the court’s final conclusion, that MySpace is liable for copyright infringement, would have been an impossible one to arrive at.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">And What of Free Speech?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it had argued before the court, intermediaries such as MySpace have no means by which to determine whether content is illegal (whether by reason of amounting to a violation of copyright, or otherwise) until content is uploaded. In other words, there is no existing mechanism by which this determination can be made at the threshold, before posting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court does not engage with the larger consequences for such a scheme of penalizing intermediaries. Censoring patent illegalities at the threshold, even if that were possible is one thing. The precedent that the court creates here is quite another. Given the general difficulty in conclusively establishing whether there is an infringement at all due to the complexities in applying the exceptions contained under section 52, it should not be for ordinary private or commercial interests such as intermediaries to sit in judgment over whether content is or is not published at all. In order to minimize its own liability, the likelihood of legitimate content being censored by the intermediary prior to posting is high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The consequences for civil liberties, and free speech and expression online in particular, appear to have been completely ignored in favour of rights holders’ commercial interests.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection</h3>
<blockquote class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">Even if every instance in question did amount to an infringement of copyright and a mechanism did exist allowing for removal of content, the effect of this judgment is to create a strict liability regime for intermediaries.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In other words, the court’s ruling will have the effect that courts’ determination of intermediaries’ liability will become detached from whether or not any fault can be attributed to them. MySpace did make this argument, even going as far as to suggest that doing so would impose strict liability on intermediaries. This would lead to an unprecedented and entirely unjustifiable result. In spite the fact that a given intermediary did apply all available means to prevent the publication of potentially infringing content, it would remain potentially liable for any illegality in the content, even though the illegality could not have been detected or addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What is perhaps even more worrying is that MySpace’s attempt at proactively and in good faith preventing copyright infringement through its terms of use and in addressing them through its post-infringement measures was explicitly cited as evidence of knowledge of and control over the uploading of copyrighted material, at the threshold rather than ex post. This creates perverse incentives for the intermediary to ignore infringement, to the detriment of rights holders, rather than act proactively to minimize its incidence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A final observation is that the court’s use, while pronouncing on relief, of the fact that MySpace makes a “copy” of the uploaded content by converting it into a format that could subsequently be hosted on the site and made accessible to show evidence of infringement and impose liability upon MySpace in itself is a glaring instance of the disingenuous reasoning the court employs throughout the case. There is another problem with the amended section 79, which waives immunity where the intermediary “modifies” material. That term is vague and overreaches, as it does here: altering formats to make content compatible with a given platform is not comparable to choices as to the content of speech or expression, but the reading is tenable under section 79 as it stands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The result of all of this is to dislodge the section 79 immunity that accrues to intermediaries and replace that with a presumption that they are liable, rather than not, for any illegality in the content that they passively host.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Effect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the judgment in the MySpace case, the Copyright Act has been amended to include some provisions that would bear on online service providers and on intermediaries’ liability for hosting infringing content, in particular. Section 52 (1) (b) of the amended Act provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public” would not infringe copyright. The other material provision is section 52 (1) (c) which provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy” will not constitute an infringement of copyright. The latter provision appears to institute a rather rudimentary, and very arguably incomplete, system of notice and takedown by way of a proviso. This requires intermediaries to takedown content on written complaint from copyright owners for a period of 21 days or until a competent rules on the matter whichever is sooner, and restore access to the content once that time period lapses, if there is no court order to sustain it beyond that period.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post does not account for the effect that these provisions could have had on the case, but it is already clear, from the sloppy drafting of section 52 (1) (c) and its proviso that they are not entirely salutary even at the outset. At any rate, there appears to be nothing that *<i>determinatively*</i> affects intermediaries’ secondary liability, <i>i.e.</i>, their liability for users’ infringing acts.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Disclosure: CIS is now a party to these proceedings at the Delhi High Court. This is a purely academic critique, and should not be seen to have any prejudice to the arguments we will make there.</i></p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr*" name="fn*">*</a>]. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. and Another, on 29 July, 2011, Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law. See<a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/quj6JW"> http://bit.ly/quj6JW</a>, last accessed on October 31, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space</a>
</p>
No publisherujwalaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeatured2012-10-31T10:27:36ZBlog EntryFeedback to Draft Copyright Rules, 2012
https://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society submitted its written comments on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 to Mr. G.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR), Ministry of Human Resource Development. </b>
<p>G.R. Raghavender<br />Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR)<br />Copyright Office<br />Department of Higher Education<br />Ministry of Human Resource Development<br />4th floor, Jeevan Deep Building,<br />Parliament Street<br />New Delhi — 110001</p>
<p>Dear Sir,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This submission contains comments from the Centre for Internet and Society on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012. I apologize for the slight delay in submitting these.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,<br />Pranesh Prakash<br />Policy Director<br />Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<hr />
<h2>Relinquishment of Copyright</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">The law in India allows anonymously and pseudonymously created works to be copyrighted as well, as is clear from section 23 of the Copyright Act. However, rule 8 as it currently is does not allow such authors to relinquish copyright. Relinquishment of copyright is a very different kind of act from registration of copyright, and hence it is not necessary to seek the same categories of information from both. Certain categories of information sought during registration of copyright ("class of work", "language of the work", "nationality of author") are required not because they help identify a work, but because they help in indexing the work ("class of work", "language of work") or in ensuring that the work is copyrightable in India ("nationality of author"). Such considerations do not matter when it comes to relinquishment of copyright, i.e., when a work is allowed to pass into the public domain. Further, technological progress has made it difficult to determine the answer to a question like "country of first publication", "nationality of the publisher", etc. If a work has been uploaded by an author on to his blog, is the publisher the author or the person hosting the blog? If an Indian author residing in India first publishes a work on the server located in Argentina, is the country of first publication India or Argentina? The answer to these questions does not make a difference to the issue of relinquishment of copyright. The only information that is required for relinquishment of rights is a) what work is being put in the public domain, b) by whom, c) from when.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Furthermore, the current requirements of rule 8 cannot easily be satisfied by using most of the popular means of relinquishing copyright (such as the CC0 — Creative Commons Zero — licence).</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendations</h2>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">Rule 8 be modified to read: A public notice issued by an author relinquishing his or her rights as per subsection (1) of section 21 of the Copyright Act, shall include the following details: (a) Title of the work (b) Full name, or pseudonym, in case the work has not been created anonymously (c) Date of issuance of the notice (d) If copyright in the work is registered under section 45, the registration number.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rule 9 be modified to read: Any one of the following shall constitute public notice of relinquishment of copyright: i. Mentioning of the notice on the work, or cover of the work, or in the metadata of the work if the work is electronic; or ii. Publication in a newspaper; or iii. Publication by the author on a publicly-accessible website</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rule 10 be modified to add the following sentence: The author shall forward a copy of the public notice to the Registrar of Copyright if copyright in the work has been registered under section 45 and on receiving such notice, the Registrar of Copyright shall post the same on the website of the Copyright Office.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Statutory Licence for Cover Versions</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph">Rule 34(2) is redundant and does not contain any detail not already present in the existing proviso to section 31C(1) of the Copyright Act. Additionally, Rule 35 also does not contain any detail not already present in the existing parent provision, section 31C of the Copyright Act.</p>
<h3>Recommendations</h3>
<p>Rules 34(2) and 35 be deleted.<br />Rule 37 should be modified to add a sub-rule requiring maintenance of records online.</p>
<h2>Indexes</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">In rule 71(3), it requires that the indexes be maintained in the form of cards. These are presumably physical cards. It is unclear why the rule should not require the maintenance of these indexes online to facilitate search by the public. Further entries 13 and 14 of Schedule II are from a time when the transaction costs incurred by the Registrar of Copyright for providing extracts from an Index were non-negligible, and hence it would have been necessary to charge a person for such services. With the capabilities of electronic systems, such retrievals are almost costless, and can be done without the intervention of the Registrar of Copyright. Hence entries 13 and 14 should not be made applicable to online retrievals. If copyright societies can be required to provide information free of costs on their websites (as per rule 65), the Registrar of Copyright should be required to do so too.</p>
<h3>Recommendation</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">Modify sub-rule (3) of rule 71 to read: "Every Index shall be available online as a downloadable database, with an online search facility."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Modify the second sentence in rule 72 to read: "The online search or inspection of the Register of Copyrights and Indexes can be utilised free of cost."</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Storage of Transient or Incidental Copies of a Work</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">It is not clear enough from the language of rule 74 that it applies only to s.52(1)(c) and not to s.52(1)(b). Since only s.52(1)(c) has a complaints mechanism, this should be made clear.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Importantly, to protect the interest of the public, the intermediaries should be asked to give public notice regarding the alleged infringing copy to ensure that the take-down mechanism is not abused, and secondly to ensure that the public can independently verify that intermediaries are following the requirement in rule 74(4) of restoring storage of the work if no court order is forthcoming within 21 days.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lastly, there is no clear precedent in India to treat a uniform resource identifier (URI) as 'place' for purposes of section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore it is necessary to further clarify the meaning of the term 'place' as used in current Rule 74(2)(d). This would be best served by using the correct technological term ("URI") instead of the word "place".</p>
<h3>Recommendation</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">Modify sub-rule (1) of rule 74 to: "Any owner of copyright may give a written complaint as per clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 52 of the Copyright Act to a person who has facilitated..."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Add sub-rule (6) to rule 74: "The person responsible for storage shall put up a public notice thereby notifying all persons requesting access to the alleged infringing copy by stating reasons for restraining such access whether during the period of 21 days from the complaint from the copyright owner, or pursuant to an order from a competent court."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Modify rule 74(2) to read: "Details of the specific uniform resource identifier (URI) where transient or incidental storage of the work may be taking place."</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Making or Adapting the Work by Organizations Working for the Benefit of Persons with Disabilities</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rule 75 requires organizations making use of the exception granted under s.52(1)(zb) to maintain records. This could not have been the intention of the legislature in passing s.52(1)(zb), since that provision does not require any maintenance of records. Indeed, none of the exceptions ennume-rated in s.52(1) require the maintenance of records. This is in contrast with s.31B, which is also applicable to organizations working for the benefit of persons with disabilities, but only those that are doing so as a for-profit venture. Rule 29(6) already requires the Registrar of Copyright to notify the grant of a licence under s.31B in the Official Gazette. That provision may be modified to add that the Registrar of Copyright maintains these records in a centralized database that can be queried online.</p>
<h3>Recommendations</h3>
<p>Delete rule 75, and modify rule 29(6) to include a centralized database.</p>
<h2>Technological Protection Measures</h2>
<h3>Analysis</h3>
<p class="Firstparagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">Most experts seem to hold that s.65A of the Indian Copyright Act does not affect circumvention tools, as it only deals with the act of unauthorized circumvention and not with the tools, in sharp contrast with s.1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US, which criminalises the "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provision, or otherwise trafficking in any [circumvention] technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof". The Indian law has conciously chosen not to emulate the DMCA in this respect, as the WIPO Copyright Treaty does not require it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The broad understanding of "facilitation" contained the Copyright Rules unfortunately seem to undermine this clear distinction. If facilitation is understood to include offer to the public, provision, or distribution, as seems to be the case in Rule 79(3) and 79(4), then law becomes unworkable with each and every website that allows for the downloading of any software that can be used to play DVDs, etc., must specifically keep a register of downloaders from India. This is unnecessary, and goes beyond the intent of s.65A, which is to cover those who actively facilitate circumvention and not those who make available the tools to circumvent. This distinction should not be blurred.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Delete sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 79.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-10-04T04:53:47ZBlog EntryEntertainment industry and Internet piracy in focus
https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-sep-17-2012-krishnadas-rajagopal-entertainment-industry-and-internet-piracy-in-focus
<b>The first-of-its-kind initiative by the anti-piracy cell of the Kerala Police to register cases against 1,010 Internet users for uploading or downloading the Malayalam film Bachelor Party has sparked a debate between social media experts and legal puritans on what the law actually says.</b>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Krishnadas Rajagopal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/article3904909.ece">published</a> in the Hindu on September 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Prashant Iyengar are quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Internet users and anti-monopoly advocates say the police action against movie downloaders is “questionable.” They argue how the Copyright Act, 1957, has given wide exception to those who disseminate copyright works for “personal and private use.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Legal puritans, on the other hand, quote the same 1957 law and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, to argue that the State police have not done anything wrong.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">They say the act of uploading and downloading a copyrighted cinematographic work amounts to publishing and transmitting it, respectively.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">They cite Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000, that says a “hacker,” if found guilty, can get three years’ imprisonment, a fine up to Rs.2 lakh, or even both.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">That’s not all. Section 43 of the same statute prescribes that a “hacker” may have to cough up Rs.1 crore in compensation in case of “damage to the computer system.”</p>
<p><b>Middle line</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some others draw the middle line about the police’s drive. They say that though downloading is as illegal as buying a pirated CD from the market and “ignorance of law is no excuse to escape prosecution under an existing law,” the sheer magnitude of registering mass cases against downloaders, probably on a global scale, is impractical.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It is questionable whether downloading for personal use by itself constitutes an offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Act has created a wide exception for personal and private use,” says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager for Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance and Freedom of Speech at The Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The usage “personal and private use” in the Act can be better understood in the contrast — that is, downloading without any intention to “disseminate the cinematographic work to a community you are not provisionally associated to.”</p>
<p><b>Legislative intent</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies, Jindal Global Law School, says the legislative intent behind the wide exceptions given to dissemination of work in the 1957 law is actually strengthening the public domain.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In India under the Copyright Act, we have a robust regime of fair dealing rights to ensure that information cannot be monopolised at the expense of the public’s access to information,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He refers to Section 52 of the Act that allows reproduction of literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works for research and private uses without any “quantitative restriction” on the amount that may be copied. “However, cinematographic works do not fall under this exception,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under Section 51, a single copy of a cinematographic work could be “imported” to India for personal and domestic use. This would not amount to copyright infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“But it is currently unsettled in law whether Section 51 would protect users downloading movies for their personal use. On the other hand, if you receive a copy of a movie CD by post, this section would clearly apply,” Mr. Iyengar says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pavan Duggal, senior Supreme Court lawyer specialising in cyber laws, differs in his opinion. As far as he is concerned, the law is clear against copyright infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He says unauthorised downloading of movies also attracts action under the IT Act, 2000. “The legal perspective is that when you upload a pirated copy, you are doing an act of publishing and when you click the ‘download’ button, you are transmitting data in an electronic format for the purpose of diminishing the value of electronic information,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The Kerala Police have not done anything fundamentally wrong by registering cases against uploaders and downloaders. When I am creating a film, I have copyright to both cinematic and electronic versions. In case of infringement, I can act by suing for damages, injunction, in addition to exposing the person to criminal liability under the Copyright Act,” Mr. Duggal says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Mr. Iyengar vehemently counters the point. He asks a “pertinent” question — how the Kerala Police conducted their probe and how the Internet Protocol addresses were obtained when Internet service providers have strict privacy obligations against disclosure of any such details, except to government authorities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In this case, one hears that a private investigation firm called ‘Jadoo Infotech’ was involved in conducting ‘cyber-patrolling,’ which is not authorised by any law. They would be guilty of the digital equivalent offence of ‘lurking house trespass’,” Mr. Iyengar says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But Nandagopal Rajan, an associate editor with a technology magazine in Delhi, has a simple logic grounded in law.</p>
<p>“Anybody who is downloading illegally cannot seek protection. You are actually doing something illegal. On the flip side, how many people can you prosecute?” he asked.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-sep-17-2012-krishnadas-rajagopal-entertainment-industry-and-internet-piracy-in-focus'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-sep-17-2012-krishnadas-rajagopal-entertainment-industry-and-internet-piracy-in-focus</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPiracyCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-09-17T10:00:54ZNews ItemMeeting of the Global Network on Flexible Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/news/info-justice-public-events-flexibility-network
<b>American University Washington College of Law organized a meeting of the Global Network in Washington D.C., on September 12 to 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash was one of the 25 participants. </b>
<h2>Agenda</h2>
<p><b>September 12<br /></b></p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>4:00-6:00</td>
<td>
<p>Recent Developments in Fair Dealing In Canada Room 603 | (<a class="external-link" href="http://media.wcl.american.edu/Mediasite/Play/05899ed8a93048bfa4a91214b47d6f4c1d">Webcast</a>) Peter Jaszi, Ariel Katz, Howard Knopf, Martin Senftleben, Michael Carroll</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><b>September 13</b></p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>5:00-6:00</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">PIJIP Welcoming Reception, Room 600. The reception will be a joint welcome for the L&E Network and a concluding reception for an Orphan Works meeting with librarians hosted by Pam Samuelson and the Berkeley clinic.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5:30-9:00</td>
<td>Public Knowledge hosts the 9th Annual IP3 Awards. Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><b>September 14<br /></b></p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9:00</td>
<td>Welcome Introduction</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9:30</td>
<td>Discussion of the model open text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:30</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:15</td>
<td>Review of draft 3-Step paper (to be circulated)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2:15</td>
<td>Roundtable on current developments in local contexts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3:30</td>
<td>Review of the current state of the TPP negotiations and U.S. proposed text on Limitations and Exceptions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5:00</td>
<td>Transport to Leesburg – site of TPP meeting</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7:00</td>
<td>Dinner reception with TPP IP negotiators</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><b>September 15</b></p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9:30</td>
<td>Discussion of the model arguments and counterarguments document</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:30</td>
<td>Discussion of a possible report of findings to accompany the models</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:30</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:15</td>
<td>Roundtable on the way forward<br />
<ul>
<li>What work should we prioritize between this meeting and the December Global Congress?</li>
<li>What research is the group currently engaged in that may bear on limitations and exceptions?</li>
<li>How could this group define future uses of the network after the Global Congress? One example might be a book or other collection of case studies reporting on how laws actually work in given countries.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3:15</td>
<td>Roundtable on local forums continued: where are L&E interventions needed most?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:00</td>
<td>End of meeting</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The following individuals participated:</p>
<ul>
<li>Martin Senftleben</li>
<li>Pedro Paranagua</li>
<li>Pedro Mizukami</li>
<li>Dick Kawooya</li>
<li>Hong Xue</li>
<li>Jennifer Urban</li>
<li>Pam Samuelson</li>
<li>Ahmed Abdel Latif</li>
<li>Peter Yu</li>
<li>Andrew Rens</li>
<li>Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza</li>
<li>Oliver Metzger</li>
<li>Gwen Hinze</li>
<li>Peter Jaszi</li>
<li>Michael Carroll</li>
<li>Sean Flynn</li>
<li>Meredith Jacob</li>
<li>Matt Sag</li>
<li>Jonathan Band</li>
<li>Ariel Katz</li>
<li>Howard Knopf</li>
<li>Alberto Cerda Silva</li>
<li>Pranesh Prakash</li>
<li>Allan Rocha de Souza</li>
<li>Sylvie Nerisson</li>
<li>Lila Bailey</li>
</ul>
<p>Read the original published in infojustice.org <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/public-events/flexibility-network">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/info-justice-public-events-flexibility-network'>https://cis-india.org/news/info-justice-public-events-flexibility-network</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyright2012-10-04T05:59:56ZNews ItemConsumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report
https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012
<b>Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012. The report was published on the A2K Network website.</b>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist. India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is unfortunate that the larger public interest in copyright-related issues are never foregrounded in India. For instance, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings without calling a single consumer rights organization, and without seeking any civil society engagement, except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations, including consumer rights organizations, sending in a written submission to the Standing Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This lopsidedness in terms of policy influence is resulting in greater imbalance in the law, as evidenced by the government's capitulation to a handful of influential multinational book publishers on the question of allowing parallel importation of copyrighted works. Furthermore, pressure from the United States and the European Union, in the form of the Special 301 report and the India-EU free trade agreement that is being negotiated are leading to numerous negative changes being introduced into Indian law, despite us not having any legal obligation under any treaties. Such influence only works in one direction: to increase the rights granted to rightsholders, and has so far never included any increase in user rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Visually impaired persons, for instance, have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works.</p>
<hr />
<p>Source URL: <a href="http://bit.ly/QEJf5l">http://bit.ly/QEJf5l</a><br /><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/ci-ip-watchlist-report-2012" class="internal-link">Click</a> to download the report [PDF, 201 Kb]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-08-16T10:23:36ZBlog EntryRing Side View : Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view
<b>As a legal advisor of the World Blind Union and part of the World Blind Union delegation to the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) that concluded on July 25, 2012 I had a ring side seat to the negotiations that happened between Member States in relation to the Treaty. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On call almost 24 x 7 to answer questions and clarify positions to Member States on aspects relating to the Treaty and the ground reality faced by the print disabled community, those were possibly the most grueling 10 days of my life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Progress at the last 3 SCCRs was painfully slow. At the start of this SCCR on July 16 2012 the single biggest hurdle to progress on the Treaty was the stand that the African Group had taken at the earlier SCCRs with respect to a comprehensive text covering exceptions and limitations to copyright for education, libraries, archives and disabilities. See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzKnVkcW7LQ">my discussion with Jamie Love</a> from Knowledge Ecology International on this issue. It was evident that while a comprehensive text had its merits, it would be impossible to make progress on this comprehensive text because, other that for exceptions for disabilities, the issues relating to education, libraries and archives had not reached the level of maturity required to progress to a Treaty. So it was essential that exceptions for disabilities were de-linked from exceptions for education etc. This is exactly what the African Group did much to the excitement of the WBU team.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much was left to be done over the next few days including discussion on the text of the working document which prepared by Chair after SCCR 23,<a class="external-link" href="http://wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=195021"> available here</a>. Normally, discussions on text happen at the plenary session attended by Member States as well as accredited organizations such as the World Blind Union, my organization Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy and others. This process, while adding to transparency and more participation is sometimes slow and the request of some Member States considering the urgency of the matter, discussions were taken out of plenary into a closed room round table discussion. All Member States could participate and many did. Unfortunately, accredited organizations were not invited to attend. Full credit to Member States in terms of effort put into this effort as they worked well beyond normal working hours on most days in an attempt to reach consensus on the text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another critical outcome we had hoped for was that there would be consensus between Member States that the instrument would be in the form of a Treaty. As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/blind-treaty-2012_n_1706543.html">Huffington Post</a> and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/30/us-eu-blocking-treaty-blind-books">Guardian</a>. The drawbacks of a soft law as opposed to a Treaty is obvious in that a soft law has no binding force as opposed to a Treaty. Rumor has it that the reason for the United States not supporting the Treaty is that the publishing lobby is apparently a huge contributor to President Obama’s re-election campaign and that he could ill afford to alienate this lobby by pushing for the Treaty. The European Union’s opposition to a binding Treaty was despite a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in February 2012 <a class="external-link" href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120216IPR38346/html/Binding-rules-to-ensure-blind-people%27s-access-to-books">calling on the European Union to support a binding Treaty</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We had hoped that SCCR 24 would close with agreement on the text, agreement that it would be a Treaty and finally that the SCCR referring the Treaty to the upcoming General Assembly in October 2012 to call for a Diplomatic Conference in 2013 to expressly agree on the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, this was not to be. Although much progress was made on the text, the text remains incomplete, with a lot of brackets in the text on undecided points. There was no consensus that the instrument should be a treaty. And lastly there was no decision on referring the issue to a diplomatic conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next steps as outlined in the conclusions to SCCR 24 are the following:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">an inter-sessional meeting of the SCCR be held in Geneva between the 2012 General Assembly and the 25th session of the SCCR to continue work;</li>
<li>the 25th session of the SCCR will attempt to conclude or advance substantially the text of the document; and </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">that the General Assembly convene an extraordinary session to be held in December 2012 to evaluate the text from SCCR/25 and to make a decision on whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SCCR 24 made more progress on this issue that any of the previous SCCRs I have attended. We are very optimistic that the Treaty will become a reality of the next 18 to 24 months with the increased pressure being exerted on the US and the European Union by the blind groups in these jurisdictions respectively. Needless to say, the Treaty will benefit developing countries the most since the majority of persons with print disabilities are in these countries. India and other developing countries are mindful of this and are pushing as hard as possible to make it happen.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>My next post will be on the pros and cons of the text that was proposed at the end of SCCR 24</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-08-13T04:34:22ZBlog EntryCopyright Law: More Than A Moral Obligation
https://cis-india.org/news/www-businessworld-in-jaya-bhattacharji-rose-august-9-copyright-law
<b>It was a cozy and warm atmosphere in a bookstore in South Delhi — with plenty of cushions thrown on the floor — that I attended a delightful book launch for children. The book was displayed prominently, along with some fabulous original illustrations done by the author, from which the book illustrator had been “inspired”. I clicked some photographs with my smartphone. The publishers, based in another city, couldn't attend the event. So, I thought why not mail it to them, they are fraternity. Soon, a newsletter popped into my mailbox from the same publisher, with a lovely write-up of the book launch accompanied by my photographs, but with no acknowledgement given to me. I was disappointed.</b>
<hr />
<p>This column by Jaya Bhattacharji Rose was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.businessworld.in/web/guest/storypage?CategoryID=37528&articleId=459101&version=1.0&journalArticleId=459102">published in Business World</a> on August 9, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After pondering over it, I decided to bring it to the publisher’s notice. To me, it was the principle of recognising the IPR (intellectual property rights) of the creator and giving due credit that I felt was at stake here. This was the reply I received, “So sorry. It was a slip up as I had said that you should be acknowledged. But since that is not the usual practice — simply because no one had asked — it was overlooked.” An apology received and accepted. I did not stop at that. I requested that in the next newsletter it should be rectified and on the blog, the photographs uploaded should go with credits.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To explore larger issues surrounding copyright, and for publishers in general, <a class="external-link" href="http://businessworld.in/web/guest/storypage?CategoryID=0&articleId=304899&version=1.0&journalArticleId=304900">management of copyright</a> is a very important part of their business. In May 2012, the Indian Parliament passed a few amendments to the Copyright Act. (It is still a bill, at the time of writing this column.) A victory to a large extent for the music industry, but it has made very little difference, so far, to the publishing industry. Plus, the debate surrounding Clause 2(m) of the Indian Copyright Act is still an open chapter. As per the clause, a book published in any part of the world can easily be sold here. Thus, diluting the significance or infringing upon an exclusive Indian edition. The Parliament Standing Committee investigating the pros and cons of Clause 2(m), made a “forceful recommendation” for its amendment, but it was not included in the bill. So the HRD Minister has referred it to an NCAER expert committee constituted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, another amendment relevant to the publishing industry has been the increase in copyright term for photographs. “This will make using older photographs impossible without hunting down the original photographer,” says Pranesh Prakash, a lawyer and copyright expert and programme manager at Centre for Internet and Society. “So far, things have worked well because sepia-tinted photographs have generally become part of the public domain. But now, only photographs by photographers who died before 1951 are part of the public domain. This has shrivelled up the public domain in photographs since it is even more difficult to trace the photographer (and date of death) than to estimate the age of a photograph, determining whether a photograph is in the public domain is laden with uncertainty. The use of historical photos in books (and Wikipedia) will be badly affected.”<br /> <br />Having been a publisher for years, I tend to be very careful about issues involving copyright. Dig deep and you will find anecdotes that illustrate the crying need for understanding copyright issues. For example, an illustrator submitting files to a reputed art director could be told that the illustrations are not up to mark. Unfortunately, when the book is published, the ‘new’ illustrations are pale imitations of the original line drawings submitted by the illustrator.<br /> <br />Or for that matter, a playwright being asked to create a script, but is never acknowledged or even paid the royalty due since the director believes that the core idea for the play is hers. ‘The playwright merely gave it a form’ is a common retort. Or, a couple of editors discovering their original research (and highly acclaimed globally) has been blatantly plagiarised by a well-known writer and published by an equally prominent publisher. Despite having marshalled all the necessary evidence, the editors are unable to file a case, since the court fee is a percentage of the damages sought and is beyond their reach. So, these cases stagnate with no redressal and the creators are left frustrated and angry.<br /> <br />The core issue is, how many professionals in the publishing eco-system actually know what is copyright or how to exercise their rights? After all, it is only a concept, albeit a legal one, which gives the creator of an original work exclusive right(s) to it for a limited period of time. Establishing and verifying the ownership to copyright is a sensitive issue. A good example of how an organisation can facilitate, disseminate, inform and empower a literary community on IPR and related topics is the Irish Writers Union.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to their <a class="external-link" href="http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/irish_writers_union.pdf">website</a>, it is “the representative organisation for one of the major stakeholders in any discussion about copyright: Irish authors. While we understand that copyright legislation might be a barrier to innovation in certain industries, the IWU believes that any change to copyright law must be managed in such a way as to ensure that no damage is done to Ireland’s literary activity. ...literature earns hard cash for Ireland. Both in the form of its contribution to the €2bn annual gain from cultural tourism and in the considerable revenues deriving from the success of sales of Irish works, Irish publishing and writing is an activity that should not be jeopardised by any legal change that weakens the value of copyright ownership to the creators of original literary works. ...We note that if anything, copyright law in regard to literature should be strengthened to protect rights holders.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As Shauna Singh Baldwin, a Canadian-American novelist of Indian descent, comments upon the significance of copyright in an e-mail conversation with me, “The breath of the individual creator, his/her imagination and speculation gives life to a work of art. To create something new, you take ideas from many sources, recontextualise them, find unexpected connections between them, and create something new — and beautiful. If we continue to be ashamed of our own imaginations and so fearful of mistakes that we must copy the tried and true, we will never create, only innovate.”<br /> <br />As for the rejoinder and photo credits I had requested for my photographs, the publisher implemented it immediately. And I was glad.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Jaya Bhattacharji Rose is an international publishing consultant and columnist</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-businessworld-in-jaya-bhattacharji-rose-august-9-copyright-law'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-businessworld-in-jaya-bhattacharji-rose-august-9-copyright-law</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-08-13T03:59:47ZNews ItemCIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives
<b>This was the statement delivered by Pranesh Prakash on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, Knowledge Ecology International, Conseil International des Archives, Library Copyright Alliance, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to commend this house for adopting SCCR/23/8 as a working document on the issue of exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. This issue is of paramount interest the world over, and particularly in developing countries. I would like to limit my oral intervention to three quick points, and will send a longer statement in via e-mail.</p>
<p>First, we feel that this committee should pay special attention to ensuring that digital works and online libraries and archives such as the Internet Archive, also receive the same protection as brick-and-mortar libraries.</p>
<p>Second, we are concerned that we have been seeing some delegations advancing a very narrow interpretation of the three-step test. Such a narrow interpretation is not supported by leading academics, nor by practices of member states. A narrow interpretation of the three-step test must be squarely rejected. In particular, I would like to associate CIS with the strong statements by IFLA and KEI to maintain flexibilities within exceptions and limitations, instead of overly prescriptive provisions encumbered by weighty procedures and specifications.</p>
<p>We have comments about parallel trade as well, drawing from our experience and research in India, and will send those in writing.</p>
<p>Libraries and archive enhance the value of the copyrighted works that they preserve and provide to the general public. They do not erode it. Exceptions and limitations that help them actually help copyright holders. The sooner copyright holders try not to muzzle libraries, especially when it comes to out-of-commerce works, electronic copies of works, and in developing countries, the better it will be for them, their commercial interests, as well as the global public interest.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightFair DealingsIntellectual Property RightsArchivesWIPO2012-07-25T10:54:38ZBlog 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 KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:44:21ZFileTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 23, 2012)</li>
<li>(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:35:43ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:34:22ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:08ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:33:29ZFile