The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>On behalf of CIS, it is my submission that the study can
additionally focus on all the key actors along the entire supply and value
chain involved in content dissemination in the digital environment,
complementing the study of the legal environments. This would shed considerable
light on national legal frameworks and also provide us evidence of
transparency, or the lack thereof in the businesses involved and the extent of low proportions of copyright and
related rights payment to the creators and their unfair treatment.</p>
<p>Thank
you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:42:28ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Discussion on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>CIS works on issues of access to knowledge and other digital
rights in India.</p>
<p>I would like to share with you my experience which highlights
the difficulty of building digital archives in India. Mr. Chair, earlier last
year the government of India embarked upon the important project of digitizing
the cultural audiovisual material stored in government and private collections to store material for preservation purposes,
and set up a virtual network of these repositories to offer online access. My
organization has been assisting them in this crucial public service mission. These works are oral traditions, dance,
music, theatrical practices, cultural practices – all of which lie largely
inaccessible and languishing in several small and large collections in India.
Since, the Indian copyright Act does not contain an exception for the purposes
of preservation by an archive; the entire project has suffered high costs in
terms of money and time. Money, because the project had to get expensive legal
assistance to set up processes to obtain rights clearance from all the
performers who were a part of the works and copyright holders- some of which
are orphan works, thereby compounding the problem. Further, partnering
organizations also expressed legitimate fears of supplying their works, in case
of a potential copyright and related rights violation that could implicate them
with civil/criminal liability.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, for the benefit of other states to
update their standards corresponding to this international legal instrument as
well, it would indeed be useful to adopt the proposals mentioned in the document <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_3.pdf">SCCR/26/3</a> that
address these issues, and others.</p>
<p>
Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightArchivesAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:35:36ZBlog EntrySeminar on Rethinking Copyright and Licensing for Digital Publishing Today (Delhi, January 23)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017
<b>Against the backdrop of a growing global and domestic digital publishing industry on one hand and the recent judgment by the Delhi High Court that upheld the education exception to reproduction of academic and literary works, Pro Helvetia - Swiss Arts Council, Goethe-Institut Max Mueller Bhavan New Delhi, and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) are organising a seminar to discuss and reflect on the relevance and functions of copyright and licensing within the transforming market practices and legal structures of the publishing industry today.</b>
<p> </p>
<img src="http://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-january-23/leadImage" alt="Seminar on Rethinking Copyright and Licensing for Digital Publishing Today, Delhi, January 23" width="400" />
<p> </p>
<h4>Poster: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-january-23/leadImage">Download</a> (PNG)</h4>
<hr />
<p>The two speakers at the seminar will be <a href="#philipp">Dr. Philipp Theisohn</a>, Professor of Modern German Literary Studies, Zurich University, and <a href="#kerstin">Ms. Kerstin Schuster</a>, Droemer Knaur publishing group. The session will be chaired by <a href="#zakir">Mr. Zakir Thomas</a>, Additional Director General (Risk Assessment), Directorate of Income Tax, Government of India.</p>
<p>Dr. Theisohn will address the question of whether the digital age requires a new approach to copyright thinking, and Ms. Schuster will discuss the dynamics of the international market for licenses in the contemporary publishing world.</p>
<p>Please join us at the CIS Delhi office on Monday, January 23, at 11:00 for the seminar. The seminar will include the presentations by the speakers followed by an open moderated discussion.</p>
<p>Further, it is our great pleasure to inform you that in a recent judgement on the Super Cassettes v. MySpace case, the Delhi High has strengthened the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by internet intermediaries in India. As CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment, we would like to invite you for an informal discussion about the case over lunch. This will take place after the seminar.</p>
<p>A brief analysis of the judgement can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Please RSVP by sending an email to Nisha Kumar at <a href="mailto:nisha@cis-india.org">nisha@cis-india.org</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Address:</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, first floor, B 1/8, Hauz Khas, near G block market, after Crunch, New Delhi, 110016.</p>
<p><strong>Location on Google Map:</strong> <a href="http://j.mp/cis-delhi">http://j.mp/cis-delhi</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3 id="philipp"><strong>Philipp Theisohn</strong></h3>
<p>Philipp Theisohn, who was born in 1974, studied Modern German Literature, Medieval Studies and Philosophy in Tübingen and Zürich. He gained his doctorate in Jerusalem and Tübingen and, since 2013, has been Professor of Modern German Literary Studies at Zurich University. He has produced numerous publications on German and European literary history from the 13th to the 21st century, in particular on “literary future knowledge“, the perception of literary property, and Jewish Cultural Poetics.</p>
<p>The focal points of his work and research are the literature of Switzerland, literary property/plagiarism as a literary historical phenomenon, science fiction and futurology, realism, Franz Kafka and Early Modern Poetics of Knowledge.</p>
<p>Theisohn is intensely involved in the transmission of literature far beyond the academic environment. He is a member of the jury for the “Swiss Book Prize“ of the Publishers‘ Association, an expert for inter-disciplinary and literary projects for the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia; he curates literary exhibitions, is active in a broad range of journalistic work, among other things for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and is in charge of the blog and website of the “Schweizer Buchjahr” which contributes significantly to contemporary literary discourse.</p>
<p>Among his most important book publications are: "Die Zukunft der Dichtung. Geschichte des literarischen Orakels 1450-2050" (“The Future of Poetry. The History of the Literary Oracle 1450-2050”); “Plagiat. Eine unoriginelle Literaturgeschichte”( “Plagiarism. An Unoriginal Literary History”) and “Literarisches Eigentum. Zur Ethik geistiger
Arbeit im digitalen Zeitalter” (“Literary Property. On the Ethics of Intellectual Work in the Digital Age”).</p>
<h3 id="kerstin"><strong>Kerstin Schuster</strong></h3>
<p>Having obtained a university degree in Romance Studies and Political Science, Kerstin Schuster worked in the bookselling trade. Since 1993 she is trading licenses for the international market. She has worked till 2001 for the literary agency Dr. Ray-Güde Martin, from 2001 until 2013 for the publishing house S. Fischer Verlag in Frankfurt, and since 2014 for the Droemer Knaur publishing group.</p>
<p>For many years now, Kerstin Schuster is also facilitating seminars on how to successfully offer and sell licenses in the international market.</p>
<h3 id="zakir"><strong>Zakir Thomas</strong></h3>
<p>Mr. Thomas is an expert in the field of intellectual property. He has served as a former Registrar of Copyright for the Government of India, and as a project director of the Open Source Drug Discovery Initiative under the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (a premier R&D org). His expertise spans across copyright, open source innovation, neglected diseases and innovation ecosystem in science and technology in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightLicenseAccess to KnowledgeDigital PublishingDigital Scholarship2017-01-21T14:51:56ZEventSuper Cassettes v. MySpace (Redux)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace
<b>The latest judgment in the matter of Super Cassettes v. MySpace is a landmark and progressive ruling, which strengthens the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by Internet intermediaries in India. It interprets the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to restore safe harbor immunity to intermediaries even in the case of copyright claims. It also relieves MySpace from pre-screening user-uploaded content, endeavouring to strike a balance between free speech and censorship. CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>On 23rd December 2016, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Deepa Sharma of the Delhi High Court delivered a decision overturning the 2012 order in the matter of Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. MySpace. The 2012 order was heavily criticized, for it was agnostic to the technological complexities of regulating speech on the Internet and cast unfathomable burdens on MySpace. In the following post I summarise the decision of the Division Bench. Click <a class="external-link" href="http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SRB/judgement/24-12-2016/SRB23122016FAOOS5402011.pdf">here</a> to read the judgment.</p>
<h3><strong>Brief Facts</strong></h3>
<p>In 2007, Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) filed a suit against MySpace, a social networking platform, alleging copyright infringement against MySpace. The platform allowed users to upload and share media files,
<em>inter alia</em>, and it was discovered that users were sharing SCIL’s copyrighted works sans authorisation. SCIL promptly proceeded to file a civil suit against MySpace for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i)
of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51(a)(ii).</p>
<p> The 2012 order was extremely worrisome as it had turned the clock several decades back on concepts of internet intermediary liability. The court had held MySpace liable for copyright infringement despite it having shown no knowledge about specific instances of infringement; that it removed infringing content upon complaints; and that Super Cassettes had failed to submit songs to MySpace's song ID database. The most impractical burden of duty that the court pronounced was that MySpace was required to pre-screen content, rather than relying on post-infringement measures to remove infringing content. This was a result of interpreting due diligence to include pre-screening.</p>
<p>The court injuncted MySpace from permitting any uploads of SCIL's copyrighted content, and directed to expeditiously execute content removal requests. To read CIS' analysis of the Single Judge's interim order, click <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space">here</a>.</p>
<p>In the instant judgment, the bench limited their examination to MySpace’s liability for secondary infringement, and left the direct infringement determination to the Single Judge at the subsequent trial stage. In doing so, the court answered the following three questions:</p>
<h4>1) Whether MySpace could be said to have knowledge of infringement so as to attract liability for
secondary infringement under Section 51(a)(ii)?</h4>
<p>No. According to the Court, in the case of internet intermediaries, section 51(a)(ii) contemplates actual knowledge and not general awareness.</p>
<p>Elaborating re the circumstances of the case, the Court held that to attract liability for secondary infringement, MySpace should have had actual knowledge and not mere awareness of the infringement. Appreciating the difference between virtual and physical worlds, the judgment stated “<em>the nature of internet media is such that the interpretation of knowledge cannot be the same as that is used for a physical premise.”</em></p>
<p>As per the court, the following facts only amounted to a general awareness, which was not sufficient to establish secondary liability:</p>
<ol><li>Existence of user agreement terms which prohibited users from unauthorised uploading of content;<br />
</li><li>Operation of post-infringement mechanisms instituted by MySpace to identify and remove content;<br />
</li><li>SCIL sharing a voluminous catalogue of 100,000 copyrighted songs with MySpace, expecting the latter to monitor and quell any infringement;<br />
</li><li>Modifying videos to insert ads in them: SCIL contended that MySpace invited users to share and upload content which it would use to insert ads and make revenues – and this amounted to knowledge. The Court found that video modification for ad insertion only changed the format of the video and not the content; further, it was a pure automated process and there was no human intervention.</li></ol>
<p>Additionally, no constructive knowledge could be attributed to MySpace to demonstrate reasonable ground for believing that infringement had occurred. A reasonable belief could emerge only after MySpace had perused all the content uploaded and shared on its platform – a task that was impossible to perform due to the voluminous catalogue
handed to it and existing technological limitations.</p>
<p>The Court imposed a duty on SCIL to specify the works in which it owned copyright <em>and </em>being shared
without authorisation on MySpace. It held that merely giving names of all content it owned without expressly pointing out the infringing works was contrary to the established principles of copyright law. Further, MySpace contended and the judge agreed, that in many instances the works were legally shared by distributors and performers – and often users created remixed works which only bore semblance to the title of the copyright work.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>In such cases it becomes even more important for a plaintiff such as
MySpace to provide specific titles, because while an intermediary may
remove the content fearing liability and damages, an authorized
individual’s license and right to fair use will suffer or stand negated.
(Para 38 in decision)</em></strong></p>
<p>Thus, where as MySpace undoubtedly permitted a place of profit for communication of infringing works uploaded by users, it did not have specific knowledge, nor reasonable belief of the infringement.</p>
<h4>2) Does proviso to Section 81 override the "safe harbor" granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000?</h4>
<p>and</p>
<h4>3) Whether it was possible to harmoniously read and interpret Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act?</h4>
<p>No, the proviso does not override the safe harbor, i.e. the safe harbor
defence cannot be denied to the intermediary in the case of copyright
actions.The three sections have to be read harmoniously, indeed.</p>
<p>
The judgment referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report as a relevant tool in interpreting the two provisions, declaring that the rights conferred under the IT Act, 2000 are supplementary and not in derogation of the Patents Act or the Copyright Act. The proviso was inserted only to permit copyright owners to demand action
against intermediaries who may themselves post infringing content – the safe harbor only existed for circumstances when content was third party/user generated.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>Given the supplementary nature of the provisions- one where infringement
is defined and traditional copyrights are guaranteed and the other
where digital economy and newer technologies have been kept in mind, the
only logical and harmonious manner to interpret the law would be to read
them together. Not doing so would lead to an undesirable situation
where intermediaries would be held liable irrespective of their due
diligence. (Para 49 in decision)</em></strong></p>
<p>Regarding section 79, the court reiterated that the section only granted a limited immunity to intermediaries by granting a <em>measured privilege to an intermediary</em>, which was in the nature of an affirmative defence and not a blanket immunity to avoid liability. The very purpose of section 79 was to regulate and limit this liability; where as the Copyright Act granted and controlled rights of a copyright owner.</p>
<p>The Court found Judge Whyte’s decision in Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom Online Communication Services (1995), to be particularly relevant to the instant case, and agreed with its observations. To recall, <em>Netcom</em> was the landmark US ruling which established that when a subscriber was responsible for direct infringement, and the service providers did nothing more than setting up and operating tech systems which were
necessary for the functioning of the Internet, it was illogical to impute liability on the service provider.</p>
<h3><strong>On MySpace Complying with Safe Harbor Requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 (and Intermediary Rules, 2011)</strong></h3>
<p>The court held that MySpace's operations were in compliance with section 79(2)(b). The content transmission was initiated at the behest of the users, the recipients were not chosen by MySpace, neither was there modification of content. On the issue of modification, the court reasoned that since modification was an automated process (MySpace was inserting ads) which changed the format only, without MySpace's tacit or expressed control or knowledge, it was in compliance of the legislative requirement.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>Despite several safeguard tools and notice and take down regimes,
infringed videos find their way. The remedy here is not to target
intermediaries but to ensure that infringing material is removed in an
orderly and reasonable manner. A further balancing act is required which
is that of freedom of speech and privatized censorship. If an
intermediary is tasked with the responsibility of identifying infringing
content from non-infringing one, it could have a chilling effect on
free speech; an unspecified or incomplete list may do that.
(Para 62 in decision)</em></strong></p>
On the second aspect of due-diligence, the court held that Mypace complied with the due diligence procedure specified in the Rules - it published rules, regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access of usage. Reading Rule 3(4) with section 79(2)(c), the court held that it due diligence required MySpace to remove content within 36 hours of gaining actual knowledge or receiving knowledge by another person of the infringing content. <strong>If MySpace failed to take infringing content down accordingly, then only will safe harbour be denied to MySpace.</strong>
<p>This liberal interpretation of due diligence is a big win for internet intermediaries in India.</p>
<h3><strong>Additional Issues Considered by the Court</strong></h3>
<p>MySpace also tried to defend its activities by claiming the shield of the fair dealing section of the Indian Copyright Act. However, the Court refused, stating that the fair dealing defence was inapplicable to the case as the provisions protected transient and incidental storage. Whereas, in the instant circumstances, the content in question was stored/hosted permanently.</p>
<p>MySpace also contended that the Single Judge's injunction order was vague and general and had foisted unimplementable duties on MySpace, disregarding the way the Internet functioned. If MySpace had to strictly comply with the order, it would have to shut its business in India. <strong>The Court said that the Single Judge's order, if enforced, would create a system of unwarranted private censorship, running contrary to the principles of a free speech regime, devoid of considerations of peculiarities of the internet intermediary industry. </strong>Private censorship would also invite upon the ISP the legal risk of wrongfully terminating a user account.</p>
<p>Finally, the Court urged MySpace to explore and innovate techniques to protect the interests of traditional copyright holders in a more efficient manner.</p>
<h3><strong>Relief Granted</strong></h3>
<p>Setting aside the Single Judge's order aside, the Court directed SCIL to provide a specific catalogue of infringing works which also pointed to the URL of the files. Upon receiving such specific knowledge, MySpace has been directed to remove the content within 36 hours of the issued notice. MySpace will also keep an account of the removals, and the revenues earned from ads placed for calculating damages at the trial stage.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntermediary LiabilityCopyrightCensorshipAccess to Knowledge2017-01-18T14:31:25ZBlog EntryDelhi High Court’s Ruling Against Publishers is a Triumph For Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge
<b>The court conclusively stated that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction would not constitute infringement.</b>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://thewire.in/68151/delhi-hc-ruling-photocopying-du/">published in the Wire</a> on September 23, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">In a <a href="http://thewire.in/66590/hc-dismisses-publishers-copyright-case-du-photocopy-shop/" target="_blank" title="landmark judgment">landmark judgment</a>, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Delhi high court has held that reproducing books and distributing copies thereof for the purpose of education is not copyright infringement. The ruling<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>legitimises the practice of photocopying prevalent in universities and other spaces of learning. The question of whether such photocopying without the permission of the copyright holders was legal <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-students-need-the-right-to-copy/article4654452.ece" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="arose in 2013">arose in 2013</a>. A group of five prominent publishers had filed a suit against the University of Delhi and its photocopying service provider, alleging infringement of their copyrighted titles. Specifically, they argued that the infringement arose from widely used ‘course packs’ which were photocopies of collated passages and chapters from various titles and, sometimes included entire books as well. At the heart of the matter lay the interests of students and their rights and ability to access education, academics invested in the importance of readership and the free flow of knowledge and the publishers who claimed that photocopies hurt their sales and that they ought to benefit from this practice, monetarily. The publishers wanted the court to restrain the defendants from committing ‘institutionalised infringement’ and make them <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/delhi/publishers-vs-photocopying-will-indian-institutes-pay-licensing-fee-729797.html" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="apply for bouquet licenses">apply for bouquet licenses</a> to carry on with the practice of photocopying.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The suit caused a huge furore. Soon, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Amartya-Sen-academicians-express-solidarity-with-students-rebut-publishers-claim-on-photocopy-issue/articleshow/18960713.cms" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="students and academics joined the fray">students and academics joined the fray</a> to mount a stronger defence against the publishers. Notably, Amartya Sen wrote a letter urging the publishers to reconsider the action. Thirty three academics delivered a joint statement against the suit and intervened as the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/judgment-in-the-delhi-university-photocopying-case-a-blow-for-the-right-to-knowledge/article9121260.ece" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge">Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge</a>, or SPEAK, while students put forth their interests through the <a href="https://kafila.org/tag/association-of-students-for-equitable-access-to-knowledge-aseak/" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge">Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge</a>, or ASEAK.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">Pending the adjudication of the matter, the court proceeded to temporarily injunct the preparation of such course packs.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The copyright law rests on a delicate balance between the interests of copyright owners (authors, publishers, creators, artists) and copyright users (those who use and enjoy the works). The law is designed to encourage the creation of works and simultaneously, to permit the users to enjoy the works and promote arts and knowledge.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">In the <a href="http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Indian Copyright Act, 1957,">Indian Copyright Act, 1957,</a> section 52 lists a number of scenarios which do not constitute infringement, including a fair dealing provision. In other words, the section is the bulwark for public enjoyment of copyrighted work – it allows largely purposive acts, including fair dealing, tied to bona fide use and copying in research, educational institutions, libraries, review, reportage, criticism, incidental copying and a greater degree of use for the benefit of disabled people.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The act of photocopying, the court ruled, is reproduction of the work and constitutes infringement, unless it is listed under section 52. It found that the acts of photocopying, preparing course packs and their distribution fell within the ambit of section 52(1)(i), which states that “the reproduction of any work – by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction”, would not constitute infringement. Interpreting the clause in an expansive manner, the court deemed that the application of the clause is not limited to an individual teacher-student relationship, but is applicable to educational institutions and organisations such as DU and thus, the law must reflect the realities of our burgeoning educational system.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The publishers contended that use of the copyrighted material should occur only during the course of the instruction, that is, in classroom lectures. The court disagreed and held that the course of instruction “…<span class="s1">include(s) reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues during the entire academic session for which the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and pupil but is a process commencing from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, that the pupil stands instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher to learn.”</span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="s1">Whereas the court liberally interpreted the provision on educational institutions, it also rigidly laid out the contours of the copyright law, pivotal in enabling public enjoyment of works. It held that copyright is a statutory right and not a natural or a common law right. Thus, the nature of copyright is limited and is subject to limitations and exceptions set in the law.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>It further added that “Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.”</span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">On the issue of charging a nominal fee (40 paise per page), it was held that the said rates could not cumulatively amount to be competing with the sales price of the books. They were reasonable operational costs and only if the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>reproduction charges were similar to the books, could they have been said to be functioning commercially. <span class="s1">Furthermore, the court observed that in an age of technological advancement, any act of copying for the purpose of education (within the ambit of section 52) – whether by pen and paper, or photocopying machines, or by students clicking pictures of textbooks on their cellphones should be permissible. </span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="s1">Justice Endlaw also pointed out that this flexing of user rights is in conformity with several international treaties. India is a <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="signatory to the TRIPS Agreement">signatory to the TRIPS Agreement</a> and the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Bern Convention">Bern Convention</a>, which allows India to decide “as to what extent utilisation of copyrighted works for teaching purpose is permitted..(provided) that the same is to the extent justified by the purpose” and does not “unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the author.” </span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">This fresh jurisprudence is a vindicates the freedom to exchange ideas and knowledge, which is crucial to fostering an excellent learning space. This will also ensure that eager students and teachers in developing countries freely share latest research and publications, without the slightest hesitation of operating in a grey area. <span class="s1">Justice Endlaw’s judgment has aptly restored the public-serving face of copyright law, which is a huge triumph for access to knowledge.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-09-26T15:07:07ZBlog EntryTo embed a tweet or not?
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/livemint-september-23-2016-vidhi-choudhary-to-embed-a-tweet-or-not
<b>Experts say it would amount to copyright infringement if the fair use clause is exploited.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vidhi Choudhary was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/aFwZkPDqg1HTri2Gx066jM/To-embed-a-tweet-or-not.html">published by Livemint</a> on September 23, 2016. Vidhushi Marda was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On 20 September, a user on Twitter put out details of her intriguing conversation with the driver of a leading cab hailing service that she had used. Simply put, their conversation led to the revelation of a possible scam with a direct competitor of the said cab service.<br /><br />The subject of the detailed chat easily had the makings of an investigative story and, therefore, a digital news website in India reproduced the string of tweets put out by the user in the form of a story on its platform.<br /><br />This was done without her consent and hence the user asked the digital platform to take that story down.<br /><br />In the light of this episode, let’s take a look at the laws governing such a situation. The question is, does the use of the tweet by the digital news website amount to copyright infringement or not? Or, whether Twitter is liable or not?<br /><br />As it turns out, Twitter has a safety net within the terms of service that a user must agree to before they sign up onto the platform. A company spokesperson confirmed that Twitter was not liable if a user’s Tweet is used by someone else. “On the issue of consent, one (individual/organization) needs to take consent from the other user before using his\her tweets,” the spokesperson said.<br /><br />Media lawyer Apar Gupta agreed and said that Twitter’s terms of service clearly state a clause in favour of the platform which means it is not legally liable in the above mentioned situation. “They have a worldwide, irrevocable license to publish content on their platform, which is also provided for third party affiliates,” said Gupta.<br /><br />The next question is whether a user’s tweet published by someone else amounts to copyright infringement.<br /><br />“The law that’s applicable in such a situation is the Copyright Act. For the purpose of reportage you can path your use within the fair dealing section (52) of the Copyright Act. Secondly, if the content used was a work of literary nature and creative, it would be up for copyright protection, just a mere Twitter rant or factual statements might not be that plausible,” said Anubha Sinha, program officer, at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).<br /><br />Both Gupta and Sinha agreed that the ownership of the tweet rests with the user and only the user. “It would amount to copyright infringement if the fair use clause is exploited,” said Gupta.<br /><br />To be sure, globally, too, media has been grappling with the issue. In a September 2013 article published on leading media platform, Poynter stated, “The legal rights to re-use content really only extend to Twitter, its official partners and anyone pulling tweet data through the Twitter API. So if you embed a tweet using the official Twitter-provided embed code, you should be fine. However, if you just copy and paste the text of a bunch of tweets, or download a Twitter photo and upload it to your own CMS, you may be on shakier ground. The “fair use” exceptions to copyright may still protect you depending on the circumstances, but you might have to prove it.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/livemint-september-23-2016-vidhi-choudhary-to-embed-a-tweet-or-not'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/livemint-september-23-2016-vidhi-choudhary-to-embed-a-tweet-or-not</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-09-23T01:08:13ZNews Item3 Copyright Tips for Students and Educators
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators
<b>Copyright is a really complicated topic, and when it comes to online use of creative works, accidentally crossing the line between fair use and a copyright violation is easy. How do you know what is copyrighted? Recently Frederico Morando (Creative Commons, Italy) and I presented a training session on understanding copyright policies at Wikimania 2016, which was originally proposed by Wikipedian User:Jim Carter. We covered topics such as fundamentals of copyright, exclusive rights, Berne convention, copyleft, Creative Commons licenses, Public Domain, fair use, and copyfraud.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post was <a class="external-link" href="https://opensource.com/education/16/8/3-copyright-tips-students-and-educators">published by Opensource.com</a> on August 16, 2016. This got mentioned in Wikipedia's newsletter "<a class="external-link" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single#In_brief">The Signpost</a>". This was mirrored by Wiki Edu on October 5, 2016. The post republished can be <a class="external-link" href="https://wikiedu.org/blog/2016/10/05/blurry-copyright-three-tips-for-students-and-educators/">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this article, I'll look at three copyright tips to keep in mind when you're thinking about using content—even for academic purposes— you find online.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">1. Most of what you find on the Internet is copyrighted.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Except content that clearly indicates the work is released under a free license, or that the copyright has lapsed and the work is in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain" target="_blank">Public Domain</a>, you can assume content is not freely/liberally licensed. A few popular free and <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" target="_blank">open licenses</a> include GNU General Public License (GPL), BSD licenses, Apache License, Mozilla Public License, and SIL Open Font License. If a work mentions the license, usually the license is explained or links to terms for using the work. Spending a little time to find out what license the work is under beats spending time and money on a copyright infringement case later.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">2. Fair use can be your friend, but not always.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" target="_blank">Fair use</a> means you might be permitted to make limited use of a copyrighted work without prior permission from the copyright holder. The fair use policy varies from country to country. As explained in the <a href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/" target="_blank">Stanford University Libraries site</a>, commentary/quotes and criticism, and parody are cases that often fall under fair use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Wikipedia article images related to recent music albums, movies, and even people who are deceased are used under fair use policy. Click on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.jpg" target="_blank">a recent movie poster</a> appearing in a Wikipedia article and check the copyright section for an example explanation of why the use on Wikipedia qualifies as fair use.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Example Wikipedia explanation for fair use of an image." class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Example image. an of use fair for explanation Wikipedia attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Example attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320866 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="186" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/poster-license.png" title="Example Wikipedia explanation for fair use of an image." width="520" /></p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><sup>Example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia explanation</a> for fair use of an image.</sup></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fair use also gives some freedom to scholars to use copyrighted work for academic research. To be in a safe side if you are not sure your use falls under "fair use," reach out to the copyright holder and get formal permission before using their work.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">3. search.creativecommons.org helps streamline Creative Commons content searches.</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Where do you go to search for images, illustrations, and other content with Creative Commons licensing? Most images turned up using a search engine are copyrighted and not licensed liberally, for example. A better way to search is using <a href="http://search.creativecommons.org/" target="_blank">search.creativecommons.org</a>.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Searching with search.creativecommons.org" class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Searching search.creativecommons.org with attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Searching attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320871 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="288" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/search_creative-commons.png" title="Searching with search.creativecommons.org" width="520" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You can choose Creative Commons-licensed content from several sites, such as Flickr, Google Images, Wikimedia Commons, and Europeana. You can also specify whether you want to use the content for commercial purposes, or to modify, adapt, and build upon work.</p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Squirrel image cc by 2.0" class="attr__field_folder[und]__9404 attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][format]__panopoly_wysiwyg_text attr__field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]__ attr__field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]__Squirrel 2.0 by cc image attr__field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]__Squirrel attr__format__default img__view_mode__default img__fid__320876 attr__typeof__foaf:Image media-image" height="345" src="https://opensource.com/sites/default/files/squirrel.png" title="Squirrel image cc by 2.0" width="520" /></p>
<p class="rtecenter" style="text-align: justify; "><sup>Image credit <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thartz00/4848125586/in/photolist-pJ1ZUb-pHZeyg-bHBqWK-qUPGF2-8p2py2-8omhkX-8ESRmV-8opUQb-8omCTF-8Ci9uT-8EW2Z1-aCzjww-8omsBg-egUVB6-8opD3b-pjwoda-egUUB4-5QjZw-afNR9W-8FCKKW-8ESJ1X-8opf3u-8omu6r-8opXVG-rksQLR-iiEtfF-8Fzkvi-kjQiui-6p3zqy-9vDtad-7ThZA-8oppdY-9cuAnT-8CmfVo-98RCtP-8EW259-8ESNoa-8EW1GW-8EVVLW-8ESMRa-8opfg7-8EVV73-8omdHk-8EVUMf-8ESS5x-8ESPaT-8ESSs8-9A3fb1-8omEcp-8EW1o1" target="_blank">likeaduck</a>. <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a> </sup></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note that you still will need to check which Creative Commons license the content uses. As explained in <a href="https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-2">an article by Richard Fontana</a>:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The Creative Commons suite includes licenses that implement various policies. Some, like CC BY and CC BY-SA, are normatively consistent with corresponding permissive and copyleft families of free software licenses. Others, however, particularly its “NC” (no commercial use) and “ND” (no derivative works) licenses, are in conflict with basic principles of free software and free culture. I am not alone in lamenting the application of the Creative Commons umbrella brand to cover licenses with such disparate qualities. One consequence has been a general confusing dilution of the meaning of “openness” in the context of cultural works. A more specific problem is the evidence of confusion on the part of content authors interested in applying Creative Commons licenses to their works, and resulting confusion by those interested in making use of such works. Too often a work is labeled as being licensed under “a Creative Commons license”, without specifying accurately, or specifying at all, which free or nonfree policy the author sought to apply.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If you still cannot find content—images, for example—with free licenses, but you find copyrighted content that fits your academic need, you can reach out to the content creator or copyright holder for permission. Often copyright holders allow usage of their work for non-commercial purposes, such as academic research and publication.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Do you have other sources you recommend for finding Creative Commons or Public Domain content? Let us know about your favorite resources in the comments.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3-copyright-tips-for-students-and-educators</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaWikipediaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-10-07T00:42:06ZBlog EntryAccessing pirated content might lead to prison term & Rs 3-lakh fine
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine
<b>India puts onus of downloading and viewing pirated content on individuals.
</b>
<p align="justify">The article by Alnoor Peermohammed was published in the <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-rs-3-lakh-fine-116082201042_1.html">Business Standard</a> on August 22, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr align="justify" size="2" width="100%" />
<div align="justify">The central government is putting the onus of downloading and viewing of copyrighted content from sites it has blocked (with the help of internet service providers) on users.</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">Visiting torrent (a particular type of files) websites while on Tata Communications’ network recently had users being shown a message that viewing or downloading content on those sites could land them in prison for up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh.</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">“There is not enough room in our prisons to keep these infringers and enough time in our courts to try them. It might sound very exciting as a message to put out but, essentially, they’re trying to scare people into good behaviour,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at research firm Centre for Internet and Society.
<div id="div-gpt-ad-1466593210966-0"></div>
</div>
<div align="justify"></div>
<div align="justify">There has been no change to the Copyright Act of 1957 or the Information Technology Act of 2000 for the updated notice being shown to users upon visiting blocked sites. Under these provisions, visiting a site, which is blocked is not illegal, unless it is child pornography.<br /> <br />
<div>“Copyright infringement happens all the time and even in developed countries, the rates are very high. Crackdowns on individuals and consumers are never going to solve the problem,” added Abraham.</div>
<div>Experts say the most the government could do is prosecute a couple of people and make examples of them, to dissuade others. This practice is followed globally. There are no examples, though, in India of prosecution for copyright infringement of online content.<br /> <br />
<div>The recent alteration of the statement seen by users on Tata networks was done on the directives of the Bombay High Court, after the company appealed that showing individual messages for why each website was blocked was not feasible. The resulting message sparked media frenzy that visitors of blocked websites could now be imprisoned.</div>
<div>Other media reports revealed that the recent blocking of websites by internet service providers was prompted by court orders to prevent piracy of <i>Dishoom</i>, the Bollywood movie. <br /> <br /> <span class="p-content">Globally, there’s been a move to clamp on torrent websites which host pirated content, aided by large information technology entities such as Apple or Facebook. Last month, the US authorities arrested Kickass Torrents’ founder, Arten Vaulin, and blocked all the domains of the website, only to have it resurface a day later.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActInternet GovernanceInformation TechnologyCopyright2016-08-23T02:47:52ZNews ItemUS Copyright law faces constitutional challenge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge
<b>In a major international development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit to strike down the provisions on Digital Rights Management(DRM) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In this post, I discuss DRMs, the EFF lawsuit, and then draw upon the differences between the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.</b>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Originally published by <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/2016/08/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Spicy IP</a> on August 5, 2016. <i>You may read EFF’s lawsuit <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">here</a>. <br /></i></p>
<hr />
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b><i>Decoding</i> DRM </b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">If you own a Netflix account and travel a lot, you may have been denied access to some TV shows depending on the country you logged in from. While that restriction can perhaps be gotten around by using VPNs, there exist other technological measures that prevent you from fixing your own automobile to sharing/making copies of an e-book that you supposedly bought. Such technological protection measures are commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM). These go back twenty years, and it was in 1996 when the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System">first DRM</a> appeared in the form of geo-access restrictions on DVD play.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Soon thereafter, it became de rigeur for businesses dealing in IP to apply all kinds of DRMs to their products. It was largely an embarrassing and a pointless saga of implementing software embedded restrictions to stem piracy (remember the <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/08/new-exemptions-to-dmca-anti.html">Sony BMG rootkit fiasco</a>?), given how blatantly they were discovered and circumvented. And now since technology is beginning to dwell even in our shoes, DRMs have been slapped onto these as well. So if you discover a bug causing a miscalculation in your step count, you are not only prohibited under law from probing the code and fixing it yourself, but you also may get jailed for doing so. Imagine such how such prohibition impacts and limits our daily lives and the work of professional researchers.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><span>Clearly, DRM is not just a mere trifle to be brushed aside via smarter code– its ramifications go much farther. DRMs come with the problem of masking vulnerabilities, </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-issues-with-drm">compromised security of the device and us</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-issues-with-drm">er-privacy</a><span>, and trampled consumer rights, fair use and free speech. Further, the poor design of </span><a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/guest-post-note-on-proposed-amendments.html">DRMs makes them unable to distinguish between illegal use and fair-use.</a><span> Progressive c</span><a href="http://spicyip.com/2008/06/guest-post-rise-and-fall-of-drm.html">utting down of users’ rights to store, reproduce, distribute media</a><span> has become especially problematic for developing countries because of our greater dependence on free-er terms for sale, lending and donation. On the other hand, DRMs continue to become more ubiquitous(could be </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/call-security-community-w3cs-drm-must-be-investigated">incorporated</a><span> in the HTML 5 standard soon).</span></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><b>However, in an exciting development, the first major legal battle to kill DRM has begun!</b></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Because finally in an unprecedented move, a constitutional challenge has been lodged in the US against DRM provisions, on the grounds that they restrict free speech and fair-use of copyright materials (the fair-use doctrine allows copyright law to co-exist with the first amendment). The <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">complaint</a> has been filed by EFF on behalf of Matthew Green (a security researcher) and Andrew “bunnie” Huang (a technologist)</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..</b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Sections 1201-1205 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lay down provisions relating to circumvention of DRM. Uniquely, the DMCA vests power in the Librarian of Congress to periodically enact rules granting exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions to legitimate non-infringing use of works (known as <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">DMCA Rulemaking</a>). It was under this particular instance of rulemaking in 2015, wherein the Librarian failed to grant an exemption for “<a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">…speech using clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formats and devices, and for certain forms of security research</a>.” The rejection triggered the challenge against ‘Rulemaking’, ‘anti-circumvention’ and ‘anti-trafficking’ provisions of the DMCA, namely sections 1201(a), 1203, and 1204 . (This exemption was applied for by EFF, which <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">has been seeking (and been granted) exemptions since 2003.</a>)</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">In fact, universally, DRM provisions pose questions of free speech, consumer rights, privacy and copyright law. In the following section I will examine and compare the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act</b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on DRM are based in sections 2(xa), 65A and 65B, which were introduced through the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The sections define ‘Rights Management Information’, provide for ‘Protection of technological measures’ and ‘Protection of Rights Management Information’, respectively. It must be noted that the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was the first instrument to conceive rules on DRM protection (Articles 11, 12). US was the first country to import WCT provisions into its copyright law via DMCA, which even went above the WCT standards. Soon, <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/drms-in-draft-copyright-amendments.html">Hollywood-backed USTR wanted India to follow suit</a>, and the provisions were queued up for an amendment to India’s copyright law. Please note that India is NOT a party to the WCT, and was under no obligation to enact laws on DRMs. Nevertheless, the Indian provisions with <a href="http://spicyip.com/2010/03/drms-in-draft-copyright-amendments.html">some changes and added limitations</a> were loosely lifted from the equivalent WCT articles.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It is worth noting that the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">Indian DRM provisions have better safeguards than the DMCA provisions</a>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">1) The Indian provisions (s. <a href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">65A+ 65B</a>) do not make building and distribution of circumvention tools illegal. Only the act of circumvention attracts criminal liability. However, there is a duty on the person facilitating circumvention for another person to maintain a record of the same, including the purpose for which the facilitation occurred. The purpose should not be expressly prohibited under the Copyright Act, 1957.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Regardless, being criminally liable for circumventing DRM is a major threat to small businesses and developers. In one instance, when some I<a href="http://cis-india.org/news/digital-wrongs">ndian developers had built an open source software “PlayFair”</a> to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM, they were threatened with legal action under the US’ DMCA. Despite the DMCA having no jurisdiction in India, the developers shut shop.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">2) Clauses 65A(1) and 65A(2)(a) confine violation of technological protection measures to rights enumerated in the act, only. This means that the section does not restrict circumventions which attempt to get access to the underlying work.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While India has not seen major challenges to this provision, in 2013 the Delhi High Court injuncted persons from jailbreaking into Sony Playstations. Amlan <a href="http://spicyip.com/2013/02/jailbreaking-sony-playstations-to-be.html">analysed the order</a> and questioned it in terms of the Court finding the act of ‘modifying the playstation without Sony’s consent’ illegal. Because, if you read section 65A (emphasis supplied is mine):</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>65A. Protection of Technological Measures</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(1) Any person who <b>circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act,</b> with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(c) conducting any lawful investigation; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(e) operator; or [sic]</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; "><i>(g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.</i></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Clause (1) clearly states that the law is only applicable to such technological protection measures applied to protect any of the rights conferred by the copyright act. Which raises the questions of which rights are affected when OS of the playstation is modified, and how does the modification amount to copyright infringement? One may perhaps draw that the Court in this order placed the ‘consent’ of Sony above the law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">3) S. 65A(2) safeguards certain acts which also exist as exceptions granted in the Copyright Act. These enumerated acts may be performed without attracting liability: for instance, circumventions for purposes of encryption research, security testing, lawful investigation, evading surveillance by DRM are kosher. Note that s. 65A(2)(g) permits circumvention in the interest of national security.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><i>(For a detailed exegesis of these provisions, please read <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">this piece</a>.) </i></p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY"><b>A look at the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cannot-pass-constitutional-scrutiny">draconian DMCA provisions</a></b></h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">As I mentioned earlier, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2281/text/enr">DMCA provisions on DRMs</a> are much stricter compared to the Indian copyright act. Both circumvention(s. 1201(a)(1)), and building and distribution of circumvention tools(s. 1201(a)(2)) are illegal and punishable. The DMCA also meticulously defines circumvention, in terms of “circumventing a technological measure” and “circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure.”</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-years-under-dmca">More alarmingly, these provisions envisage access controls as well as use controls</a>. So a person decrypting a DVD to gain access to the work would be held liable for infringement (unlike in India where only the act of copying or modifying the work would trigger infringement). It is also worth noting that there is no clause stating that circumvention (and tools) of only those DRMs is illegal when the DRMs protect rights conferred under the DMCA.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While s. 1201(c) states that the section shall not affect “…rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including <b>fair-use</b>…” Further, there do exist exemptions to clauses(a)(1) and (2):</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions; and</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Exemption for the purposes of law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities, reverse engineering (solely for the purposes of achieving interoperability), restricting internet access to minors, protecting personally identifiable information, security testing, encryption research, etc.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While the list seems to permit circumvention for a wide range of purposes and fair-use, <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">the vague and narrow language</a> has failed the implementation of these exemptions. EFF l<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-years-under-dmca">ists a bunch of these instances</a> where the DRM provisions have been not necessarily used against pirates, but also scientists, consumers and legit competitors.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Further, the DMCA left it entirely to the US copyright agencies to carve exemptions for non-infringing uses of works on a triennial basis. This <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking">rulemaking procedure has received heavy criticism</a>, and as a result of the 2015 rejection the Library of the Congress finds itself in a legal soup.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><b>Finally</b>, the <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint">EFF lawsuit</a> also illustrates the violations of the plaintiffs rights to free speech and fair-use, as a direct result of the provisions and the Rulemaking process. Armed with a strong case, and as Cory Doctorow puts it, we may witness the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/cory-doctorow-and-eff-eim-to-eradicate-drm-in-our-lifetime/">eradication of DRM in our lifetime</a>. And I will be following the developments closely and keep our readers updated.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-08-11T13:28:13ZBlog EntryInternational Copyright Law
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law
<b>Anubha Sinha will be attending the 2016 IViR Summer Course on International Copyright Law as a beneficiary of the OSF Civil Society Scholarship in Amsterdam from July 4 to 8, 2016. The event is being organized by the University of Amsterdam.</b>
<p>For more info <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ivir.nl/courses/icl/icl-programme.html">click here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<table style="text-align: justify; ">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><span><strong>Monday July 4</strong></span></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>8:45-9:15</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Welcome</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:15-9:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Opening Session </em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘International Framework’ </em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session sets out the framework of international copyright protection, and describes the main norms of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and various bilateral instruments.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘TRIPS and Other Trade Agreements'</em><br /> by Daniel Gervais</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session focuses on the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, administered by the WTO, and other more recent trade agreements. It takes a look at the negotiation process leading to their adoption, at the decisions from the WTO Dispute Resolution Panel and the impact on developing nations.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>18:00-21:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Boat tour on Amsterdam canals and welcome dinner </em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Tuesday July 5</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Copyright and Competition Law'</em><br /> by Thomas Vinje</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In principle, the objectives of copyright law and competition law are complementary in that they are both meant to promote creativity and innovation. In some cases, however, the exercise of exclusive rights runs afoul of competition rules. This session describes how these two fields of law interact.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘Recent Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU'</em><br /> by Stef van Gompel</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session examines the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been very active in issuing preliminary rulings interpreting various provisions of the Directive on Copyright in the Information Society and others. This leads to further harmonization of copyright within the EU but it also holds its share of ambiguities.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Wednesday July 6</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Collective Administration of Rights'</em><br /> by Daniel Gervais</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sometimes required by law and other times necessary due to practical reasons, rights owners must exercise their rights through collecting societies. This session outlines the general workings of a collective administration of rights system, and considers its future in a digital environment.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Afternoon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>(free)</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Evening</td>
<td><em>(free)</em></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Thursday July 7</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>‘<em>The EU Copyright Reform Package</em>’<br /> by Martin Senftleben</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Following its Digital Single Market Strategy, the European Commission is in the process of rolling out plans to modernise the EU copyright framework. This session discusses these plans and examines their implications.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Limitations & Exceptions for Libraries and Archives'</em><br /> by Lucie Guibault</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Archives and libraries increasingly wish to engage in digitization projects, e-lending and other relevant activities. This session explores in what way the WIPO agenda and relevant EU Directives provide room for such activities.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<div>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Friday July 8</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Database Protection'</em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In Europe, makers of databases enjoy an exclusive right on their databases pursuant to the European Directive on the legal protection of databases. This session examines the scope and content of the sui generis right on databases, and discusses the case law from the European Court of Justice and the national courts.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><i>'Digital Copyright Controversies'</i><br /> by Fred von Lohmann</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session discusses the changes brought by the digital networked environment with respect to copyright infringement liability. It describes in greater detail the liability regimes that apply to Internet intermediaries, the challenges posed by user generated content online, as well as emerging solutions to these controversies.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>17:00-19:00</td>
<td><em>Closing reception</em></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T15:32:23ZNews ItemReport of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society
<b>This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.</b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. <br /> Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Information Session on Broadcasting</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 2: June 30, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Group Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 <sup>nd</sup> SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29<sup>th</sup> SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>National Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy. </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content <em>per se</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the EU, the definitions in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Document SCCR 27/2</a> needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Defining 'broadcasting organizations'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to <em>public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof</em>. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Conclusions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28<sup>th</sup> session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Approach Forward</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27<sup>th</sup> SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Preservation</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Non-Governmental Organizations</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Member States</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: July 3, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities <br /> and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Summary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-04-04T14:39:05ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies Project Presentations at the 4th Global Congress, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015
<b>These are the presentations made by the members of the PT Project team at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 at National Law University, New Delhi.</b>
<ul>
<li><b>Nehaa Chaudhari: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-curious-case-of-the-cci-competition-law-and-sep-regulation-in-india" class="internal-link">The Curious Case of the CCI: Competition Law and SEP Regulation in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Amba Uttara Kak and Maggie Huang: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rethinking-music-copyright-management-in-the-age-of-digital-distribution-business-models-licensing-practices-and-copyright-institutions-in-india" class="internal-link">Rethinking Music Copyright Management in the Age of Digital Distribution: Business Models, Licensing Practices and Copyright Institutions in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Rohini Lakshané</b>:<b> <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-landscaping-in-the-sub-100-mobile-device-market-in-india" class="internal-link">Patent Landscaping in the sub-$100 Mobile Device Market in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Anubha Sinha: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ip-in-mobile-applications-development" class="internal-link">IP in Mobile Applications Development in India</a><br /></b></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-01-21T16:33:41ZBlog Entry4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest: Statement of Conclusion for the IP and Development track
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track
<b>The 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was held from December 15 to 17, 2015 in New Delhi. This post provides a summary of the event.</b>
<p>This was also published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track">Global Congress blog</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 1: Feedback on broad discussion in the IP and Dev track – set of collected key points:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This year, the discussions included attention to broad perspectives on clarifying the meaning and reality of open collaborative innovation, as well as significant focus on the sub-themes of economic development (innovation and software patents, clean technologies, climate change and green patenting, issues of branding and plain packaging); sustainable development (agriculture and geographic indicators [GI]); policy, law and regulation (role of governments, patenting, compulsory licensing [CL], global institutions [particularly WTO, WIPO and WHO] and national institutions [particularly patent offices]). Trade dominated the discussions across the IP and Dev track, including the TPP and other issues, reflecting the strong global trade agenda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Missing areas in the track papers, workshops and panel discussions included the limited discussion on traditional knowledge (TK); the work of indigenous groups and how they are navigating the IP landscape; biodiversity; biotech and food security; innovation in the nanotechnology sphere; and inclusive development. Accessibility to innovations for low-income households, and accessibility to innovations at the country level needs greater attention. These topics can be brought out more strongly, more directly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The value of building research networks to create explicit knowledge and coherence in research-based evidence for advocacy and policy-making was made visible in the workshop session presented by Open AIR, with the Open AIR network as the exemplar. The challenge is to translate the kinds of research and evidence presented at the GC into content and value for policy-making and trade negotiations.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 2: Value of the deliberations and future research:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a new track in the GC, introduced in 2015. It is an important track for this and future Global Congresses because it brings together the many strands of research, advocacy and other work that are related to topics in innovation, IP and development, but which are not specifically about openness, user rights or A2M. This is a very broad range of fields of study, from agriculture to nanotechnology. It was proposed that the track be renamed “Innovation and Development” to more explicitly describe its focus.<br /><br />From this GC, it has become clearer what future topics may be considered for papers and other inputs into the IP and Dev track. Such topics include counter-narratives to mainstream IP perspectives; bringing IP for development in multiple sectors to the fore – in education; in automotive manufacturing; in technology evolution; in agricultural production and food security; in the broad policy, law and regulatory environment pertinent to these and other sectoral perspectives. For example, in the paper on green patenting, reference was made to Tesla and Toyota releasing patents, but the session did not get to discuss that. The papers presented at the 4th GC suggest many areas of focus for future research and future GCs – perhaps the best way to think about this exploration is through greater attention to innovation in a range of social and economic sectors; to consider the particular challenges of innovation, IP and development in LDCs; to study innovation ecosystems and where IP fits in these ecosystem. Cross-track sessions are also considered to be very important because of the knowledge sharing that takes place across sectors, for example the discussions on patent wars in the access to medicines (A2M) track provided food for thought with respect to emerging issues in the software sector.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 3: Ideas and implications of GC sessions for future directions for research, collaborations and next GC:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For the next GC, mobilization is required across various geographic regions and a significant discussion is required on preparation and design of the sub-themes, based on the notes above. The requirement for more evidence-based research was noted. It was recommended that the future name of the track should be Innovation and Development. The core group, comprised of track leaders and sessions chairs, should continue the leadership of the track from GC to GC, bringing additional interested persons on board, in particular with respect to the design of sub-themes well in advance of the 5th GC, to guide prospective submissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ends.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsGlobal CongressCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-12-25T02:22:52ZBlog EntryCODE Session
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session
<b>CODE Project is an IDRC funded project, and CIS is a partner institution, along with PIJIP at American University Washington College of Law, USA, Karisma Foundation, Colombia, Derechos Digitale, Chile, American Assembly, Columbia University, USA and FGV, Rio.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this session held in New Delhi on December 17, 2015, CIS presented some preliminary research and sought input on methodology as well as content. The project broadly studies law and policy environment that facilitates/hinders content creation online in Brazil, US, India, Colombia and Chile. A second part of the project, led by PIJIP is developing a copyright index, to chart copyright law developments in many countries around the world. Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha participated in the open session.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-01-13T13:39:43ZNews ItemNational IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response
<b>The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.</p>
<hr />
<h3>I. Introduction</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On 24<sup>th</sup> December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf">first draft</a> of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf">press release</a> dated 30<sup>th</sup> December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses">here</a>).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Research Methodology</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/03/more-submissions-on-the-draft-ip-policy.html">SpicyIP post</a> and will provide an analysis of the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ipr-policy-comments" class="internal-link">spreadsheet</a> that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:</p>
<ul>
<li>Research organisations/NGOs.</li>
<li>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.</li>
<li>Scholars/Academia. </li>
</ul>
<p>A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Categories</th><th>Stakeholders</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Research organisations/NGOs</td>
<td>Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scholars/Academia</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Flowchart" class="image-inline" title="Flowchart" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Assumption" class="image-inline" title="Assumption" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">V. International Treaties</h3>
<p>The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “<i>In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”</i></p>
<p>On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. <i> </i>Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.<img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_Flowchart.png" alt="" class="image-inline" title="" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">VI. Utility Models</h3>
<p>A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.</p>
<p>This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy4_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Utility Models" class="image-inline" title="Utility Models" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘<i>jugaad</i>’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.</p>
<h3>VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.</p>
<h3>VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/Flowchart.png" alt="Limitations and Flexibilities" class="image-inline" title="Limitations and Flexibilities" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IX. Trademarks</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">X. Trade Secrets</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.</p>
<p>The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Trade Secret Protection" class="image-inline" title="Trade Secret Protection" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">XI. On Specialised Courts</h3>
<p>A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.</p>
<h3>XII. Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response</a>
</p>
No publisherAkshath MithalIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-11-24T15:02:17ZBlog Entry