The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
ಸೃಜನಶೀಲತೆಗೆ ಸಂದ ಗೌರವ
https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act
<b>ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಆವಿಷ್ಕಾರಗಳು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ` ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಅದರ ಮಾಮೂಲು ಅರ್ಥದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿವೆ. ತಡವಾಗಿಯಾದರೂ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಸತ್ತು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ`ದ ಹೊಸ ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆಯೊಂದನ್ನು ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸಿದೆ. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://prajavani.net/include/story.php?news=561&section=51&menuid=15">The article was published by Prajavani on June 9, 2012</a></p>
<p>ಹಲವು ಧನಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಕೆಲವು ಸಂಶಯಗಳಿನ್ನೂ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಹೊಸ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿವಿಧ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳ ತಜ್ಞರಿಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್) ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ ಹಿಂದಿಯ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರ ಹಾಗೂ ಬರಹಗಾರ ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ಚಿತ್ರ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಷ್ಟ- ಕಾರ್ಪಣ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆಕ್ರೋಶದಿಂದ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ರಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇತಿಹಾಸ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ ಇಳಿಗಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಂಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲುವಾಗ ಅವರ ದನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಷಾದವಿತ್ತು.<br /><br />ತಮ್ಮ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಕ್ಕು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದೇ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಕಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ. ಗೌರವಧನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಯಾವುದೇ ಲಾಭ ಇವರಿಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಈ ವಿಚಾರ ಹೇಳುವಾಗ `ಆವಾರಾ`, `420`ಯಂತಹ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಶೈಲೇಂದ್ರ ಅವರಿಗೆ ವೃದ್ಧಾಪ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಔಷಧಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡಲು ಹಣ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದುದು, `ಸೀತಾ ಔರ್ ಗೀತಾ` ಹಾಗೂ `ಸತ್ತೆ ಪೇ ಸತ್ತಾ` ಚಿತ್ರಗಳ ಕಥೆ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದ ಸತೀಶ್ ಭಟ್ನಾಗರ್ ಅನುಭವಿಸಿದ ಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಬರಹಗಾರರು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರನ್ನು ದುಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ತಳ್ಳಿ, ಕೇವಲ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಜೇಬು ತುಂಬಿಸುವ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅಸಮಾಧಾನವಿತ್ತು. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಸುಧಾರಿಸಲು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತರುವುದು ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದರು.<br /><br />ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಲೋಕಸಭೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ `ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ 2012`ಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಪಕ್ಷಭೇದ ಮರೆತು ಸರ್ವಾನುಮತದಿಂದ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ ಕಾಣುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ` ಇದು ಬರಹಗಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ` ಎಂದು ಬಣ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.</p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಚಾರ ಬಂದಾಗ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಹತ್ವದ್ದು ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಅನುಮಾನವೂ ಬೇಡ. ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕುರಿತು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದನ್ನು ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ ಜಯ ಎಂದೇ ವರ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.<br /> <br />ಆದರೆ, ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ವಿಸ್ತೃತವಾದ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಈ ಜಯಘೋಷಗಳ ಅಬ್ಬರದ ನಡುವೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಯಾರ ಕಣ್ಣಿಗೂ, ಕಿವಿಗೂ ಬೀಳದೇ ಹೋಗುವ ಅಪಾಯವೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವು ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳಾಗಿವೆ ನಿಜ. ಜ್ಞಾನ, ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದಂತಹ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ದಕ್ಕಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಆಶಯ ಹೊಂದಿರುವವರನ್ನು ಚಿಂತೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಿಂತನೆಗೆ ದೂಡುವ ಅಂಶಗಳೂ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಡಕವಾಗಿವೆ.<br /><br />ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸೋಣ. ಚಿತ್ರೋದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕಲಾವಿದರೆಲ್ಲ ಹಣದ ಥೈಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಇರಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಸತ್ಯ. ಈ ಕಲಾವಿದರೊಂದಿಗಿನ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳು ಸಹ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮೂಗಿನ ನೇರಕ್ಕೆ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕಟು ಸತ್ಯ.<br /><br />ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿ, ಅದು ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜನೆ, ಗೀತೆ, ಬರಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಅದನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಅದರ ಮಾಲೀಕನಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದೇ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ಕಲಾವಿದ ಅಥವಾ ಬರಹಗಾರ ತನ್ನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಮೂರನೆಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಅವಕಾಶವನ್ನೂ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂತಹ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /><br />ಎಲ್ಲ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಿಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು (ವರ್ತಮಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ) ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿದವರು ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನೂ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಬೆಳೆದಂತೆಲ್ಲ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ (ವಿಡಿಯೋ, ಡಿವಿಡಿ, ಸ್ಯಾಟ್ಲೈಟ್, ಎಂಪಿ ತ್ರಿ, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ರಿಂಗ್ ಟೋನ್ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ). ಈ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮಾಲಿಕರ (ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು) ಬೊಕ್ಕಸ ತುಂಬುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಅವರು ಈ ಆದಾಯವನ್ನು ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಿಯಮ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇಲ್ಲ.<br /> <br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ, ಎರಡು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಲೋಪದೋಷ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವಂತಿದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲಿನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಮೊದಲನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ.<br /><br />ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಡುಗಳ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರಿಗೆ ಈ ಹಾಡನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ, ಅಂದರೆ ಚಿತ್ರಮಂದಿರದ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಇತರ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಗೌರವಧನ ನೀಡಬೇಕು (ಅವರ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧ ವಾರಸುದಾರರು ಅಥವಾ ಕೃತಿ ರಚನೆಕಾರರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಬಹುದು) ಎಂಬುದು ಎರಡನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ. ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿದವರಿಗೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜಕರಿಗೆ ಎರಡನೇ ಹಂತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಹಾಗೂ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನೆರವಾಗುವ ಕ್ರಾಂತಿಕಾರಿ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಶಯವಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಆದರೆ, ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು ಸಿಟ್ಟಿನಿಂದ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾದ ಮಂಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಚಿತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಣ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರಿಸ್ಕ್ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿ ಚಿತ್ರದಿಂದ ಬರುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಲಾಭಗಳನ್ನು ತಮಗೇ ನೀಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಾದರೂ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಗೊಂದಲಗಳು ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾದಂತಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನಗೊಳ್ಳಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಕಾದು ನೋಡಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಗುತ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಕೋರ್ಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯನ್ನೇ ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸುವ ಯತ್ನಗಳು ನಡೆದರೂ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಹುಜನರಿಗೆ ಉಪಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಅಂಶವೆಂದರೆ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸೌಂಡ್ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಬಗೆಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ ಅಡಿ ತಂದಿರುವುದು. (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಆ ಮೂಲ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದ ಭಾಗ ಉದ್ಧರಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.)<br /><br />ಇಂದಿನ ಯುಟ್ಯೂಬ್ ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಕುಳಿತು ರಿಮಿಕ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ತಮ್ಮ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಅಪ್ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ. ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯಚಿತ್ರ ತಯಾರಕರು ಮತ್ಯಾವುದೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಕೆಲ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಚಿತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸಿದ್ದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮ ಎದುರಿಸುವ ಭೀತಿ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /> <br />ಈಗ ತಂದಿರುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಯಿಂದ ಈ ಭಯ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ, ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಬಳಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಅಥವಾ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಲಾಭ ರಹಿತವಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರುವವವರಿಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲಕರವಾಗುವ ಒಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. ಈ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಪ್ರೋಗ್ರಾಂ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ಸಿನಿಮಾದ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಕೊಡಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈಗ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಲ್ಲದ ಕೆಲ ವಿಚಾರಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸೋಣ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಗೀತ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಆದ ಐದು ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೆ ಅದರ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್` (ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ ಅಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗೀತೆಯನ್ನು ಅದೇ ಟ್ಯೂನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲ ಗಾಯಕರ ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರ ಬಳಿ ಹಾಡಿಸುವುದು) ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಜನಪ್ರಿಯ ಗೀತೆಗಳ ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ಗಳ ಆಧರಿಸಿಯೇ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮ ಬದುಕಿದೆ, ಬೆಳೆದಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಮತ್ಯಾರದೋ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಹಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅಕ್ರಮ ಮಾರ್ಗದಂತೆ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್`ಗಳು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೋ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ, ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯವನ್ನು ಇದು ಮುರಿದಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನಾವು ಮರೆಯಬಾರದು.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯ (ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ) ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿಯನ್ನೂ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಪೊ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಪೊ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಹಾಗೂ ಧ್ವನಿ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ 1996ರಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಿರುವ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ) ಧಾಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಅಂದರೆ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾರೂ ಕಳವು, ನಕಲು ಮಾಡದಂತೆ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಕೀಲಿ ಹಾಕುವುದು. ಈ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಕೀಲಿಯನ್ನು ಮುರಿದು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ಈಗ ಅಪರಾಧ. ಆದರೆ, ಡಬ್ಲುಸಿಟಿ ಅಥವಾ ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿಗೆ ಭಾರತ ಇನ್ನೂ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಅನ್ನು ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಇತ್ತೆ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಏಳುತ್ತದೆ. <br /><br />ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೂ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶಂಸಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಮೇಲೆ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾದ ಕಾನೂನು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾದ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗಿಂತ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮವಾಗಿದೆ. ಭವಿಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದಗಳಾದ `ವಿಪೊ` ಮತ್ತು `ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿ`ಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಬಂದೇ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ.</p>
<p>ಆಗ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒತ್ತಡ ಬರುವ ಮುನ್ನವೇ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಕಾನೂನು ರೂಪಿಸುವ ದೂರದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಾಣ್ಮೆಯನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ನೀತಿ ನಿರೂಪಕರು ಈಗ ತೋರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.<br /><br />ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರಿಗೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಲಾಭ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಹಾಗೂ ಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮುಕ್ತ ಬಳಕೆಯ ಅವಕಾಶ ಇವೆರಡರ ನಡುವೆ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಸಾಧಿಸುವಂತೆ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಹಾಲಿವುಡ್ ಉದ್ಯಮದ ಅಗಾಧ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯಿಂದ ಕಾಲಾಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಹಕ್ಕುಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಪಡೆದ ಮಾಲೀಕರತ್ತ ವಾಲಿತ್ತು.<br /> <br />ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಲೆಕ್ಕಕ್ಕೇ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಅಸಮತೋಲನ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವರಿಗೂ ಒಳಿತಾಗುವಂತೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತಂದಿದೆ. ಮುಂದಿನ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಕುರಿತು ವಿಶದವಾಗಿ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನಂತೆ ಒಕ್ಕೊರಲಿನಿಂದ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸೋಣ.</p>
<p>ಆಲ್ಟರ್ನೇಟಿವ್ ಲಾ ಫೋರಂನ ಸ್ಥಾಪಕರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬರಾದ ಲೇಖಕರು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತಜ್ಞರು.</p>
<hr />
<p>
Read the English translation below:</p>
<h2>The pros and cons of the Copyright Amendment Act 2012</h2>
<p>In his passionate speech in debate on the Rajya Sabha the noted lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar highlighted the plight of a number of musicians, lyricists and film writers who despite having contributed to some of the most important films in Indian history remained in poverty since they did not receive any benefits by way of royalties for their work. Examples of artists who suffered in penury unable to even afford medicines range from Shailendra who gave us the lyrics for films like Awara and Shree 420 to writer Satish Bhatnagar who wrote ‘Seeta aur Geeta’ and ‘Satte pe Satta’. Akhtar argued that the copyright amendment was a necessary corrective to a system that had worked incredibly well for film producers at the cost of artists. It was not surprising then that the Copyright Amendment Act 2012 saw a surprising consensus from all the political parties in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and has been hailed as an amendment that restores rights to writers and musicians.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the Copyright Amendment 2011 is one of the most significant developments in copyright law and while the media attention has been on the victory of artists against film producers it is important to remember that the amendment itself covers a much wider gamut of issues which runs the risk of being lost in the euphoria of this victory. While there are many welcome changes that have been brought about by the Amendment, there are also many others which should give cause of concern for anyone interested in public interest issues of wider access to knowledge, culture and technology. Lets start with the good news first.</p>
<p>It is well known that artists working in the film industry have historically been at a significant disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with the film producers who control the money and consequently dictate the terms of contracts with people who contribute to the film. Even though copyright law says that the owner of copyright is the creator of the work there has always existed an exception which allows the creator to assign their rights to a third party. The assignment agreements are heavily tilted in favour of the producers and all rights in all mediums (present and future) are handed over to the producer. It is a common experience that the creators of copyright are rarely ever the owners of copyright. As the secondary market for films and music developed with each generation of technology (videos, DVD, Satelite, MP3s, mobile ring tones) the owners of content found a situation in which we saw an evergreening of their property guaranteeing an eternal source of revenue which they were not obliged to share with any of the contributors. The amendment seeks to correct this by bringing in two significant changes. Firstly it says that an assignment of rights shall only be for a medium of exploitation which was in existence at the time of the assignment. It also says that authors of a literary or musical work used in a film song lyrics shall have a right to receive royalties from the work if the work is used in any manner other than as a part of a film shown in a cinema hall (the right may be assigned only to legal heirs or to a collecting society).</p>
<p>There can be no arguing that this is a radical amendment that significantly alters the ability of creators to participate in the benefits of secondary markets and also increase their bargaining power. Film producers on the other hand are livid arguing that as the primary investors and risk takers in a film they should be entitled to all the benefits accruing from the film. While the amendment is very welcome it is not bereft of ambiguities and possible complications, and we have to wait and see how the law will now be enforced. It is also likely that there will be constitutional challenges on the grounds that this is in violation of freedom of contract and the right to trade, and possibly even attempts to subvert the law. But for the moment lets celebrate a very significant victory for creators.</p>
<p>Even as creators celebrate, we should also toast the amendment for its sensitive response to the demands made by the visually disabled community. Technology has bridged the incredible gap that existed for disabled people desiring to access books and other materials. Braille was a horribly expensive and archaic technology but screen reading software has made it possible for visually disabled people to convert books into digital formats which can be read through mobile phones, computers and digital tablets. But it was impossible to convert books without violating the rights of copyright owners since the right to make electronic versions of the book is their exclusive right. The Amendment now carves out an exception for people with disabilities to be able – as a matter of right- to create digital versions and Sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B now allow the creation of ‘any accessible format’ without needing to pay royalty.</p>
<p>Another very significant amendment is the extension of the fair use provision to all classes of works including films and sound recordings. In this era of youtube when people routinely create their own remixes, upload clips this is a very welcome amendment. Any amateur or documentary film maker will testify to the difficulty hat the face when they need to use music or video clips as a part of their films and they do so with the constant threat of being sued for copyright infringement. The amendment allows a person to use film and music clips for private or personal use including research, as well as for criticism or review of that work. It is to be noted that the word criticism has been interpreted by the courts to include the ability to create parodies of the original work. Other people who should welcome the act includes educational institutions and non profit libraries who are now allowed to rent or lend a lawfully acquired copy of a software program, music and films.</p>
<p>And now for some of the not so good news. The amendment makes it more difficult to create cover versions of songs and cover versions can now not be made for a period of five year form the time of the recording of the song. As is well known the Indian music industry has grown on the basis of the freedom to make cover versions. While cover versions may seem like an unfair way of benefiting form someone else’s creation the fact of the matter is that version recording has been one of the most significant ways in which the music industry was demonopolized. The Amendment also brings in Digital rights Management (DRM) to keep India in tune with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. DRM are essentially digital or technology locks that are used to protect content and the law now makes it an offence to circumvent any technology lock. It is questionable whether this is a desirable introduction. India is not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and hence there is no need to bring DRM into Indian law. Having said that one must also appreciate that the Indian law on DRM is perhaps one of the best in the world, and one can speculate that the law makers decided to bring in a home grown version more suited to Indian reality knowing that at some point if time there would be global pressure on Indian to sign onto the two treaties and then there would be less bargaining power in terms of the law that would have been introduced.</p>
<p>Copyright was always supposed to be balance between providing incentives to creators and ensuring that there was adequate public access to knowledge. Over the years the rise of media monopolies and the might of Hollywood effectively ensured that this balance tilted heavily in favour of rights owners against the interests of creators and the general public. The Copyright amendment demonstrates that when such imbalances threaten creativity and free speech it is incumbent on the government to respond with necessary and adequate measures that serve the greater good. There will be time in the coming future to discuss and debate the specific amendments in detail, but for now lets join the parliament in unanimously welcoming a much over due amendment to the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-18T11:22:07ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment: Bad, but Could Have Been Much Worse
https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment
<b>The changes to the Copyright Act protect the disabled - but are restrictive about cover versions and web freedom, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in the Business Standard on June 10, 2012.</b>
<p>When the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, was passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha on May 22, it meant that there was little reason for celebration, some not-so-great news, and a lot of pretty bad news.</p>
<p>The only real reason for unqualified celebration is the amendment’s introduction of a robust exception for the disabled. It is bleeding-edge policy formulation, as it is right up there alongside the Treaty for the Visually Impaired currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The Indian exception is more robust: first, it is disability-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses the needs of the print-impaired; and second, it is works-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses books and printed works. In brief, given the very limited circulation of copyrighted works amongst the disabled, they now can convert inaccessible works to accessible formats and share them with each other on a non-profit basis. No royalty needs to be paid to the rights-holders for this conversion and the resultant access. Other reasons to celebrate include the newly introduced exception for non-commercial lending and the extension of fair dealing (or fair use) to all works.</p>
<p>Now for some middling news. The Digital Rights Management provision makes it an offence punishable with a fine and a two-year jail term to circumvent “effective technological measures” (also called Technological Protection Measures) and remove “rights management information” (RMI). The provision protects public interest since it does not allow rights-holders to claim rights unavailable under copyright law, and does not prevent consumers and citizens from benefiting from the various fair dealing (or fair use) exceptions and limitations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the provision mandates onerous record-keeping for those providing circumvention technologies, and also does not insist that the rights-holder provide the means for circumvent when the consumer or citizen legitimately needs to do so.<br /><br />The first piece of bad news is that an inadequate “safe harbour” provision has been introduced for Internet intermediaries. Like the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act has also gotten the configuration of the intermediary liability regime wrong. This was the opportunity to finally protect common carriers, platforms for social media and commons-based peer-production (such as free software and open content). In short, search engines are finally legal in India, and so are ISPs, virtual private network providers and content delivery networks.<br /><br />But unfortunately, social media platforms such as Facebook and peer-production platforms like Wikipedia are not afforded sufficient immunity to thrive as real-time participatory platforms. The take-down procedure is designed to provide instant relief to rights-holders, as intermediaries are supposed to remove content immediately. They have the option of reinstating content if the take-down notice is not followed within three weeks by a court order. This mechanism will have a chilling effect on free speech — given that Indian internet service providers very obviously privilege the interests of intellectual property rights-holders over those of the ISPs’ customers — as most recently illustrated by their over-compliance with certain John Doe court orders emerging from the Madras High Court.</p>
<p>The second piece of bad news is the extension of the term of protection for photographs. It has gone from being “sixty years after publication” to “sixty years after the death of the photographer”. Sixty years from publication was already in excess of the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Now we are in excess of WIPO Copyright Treaty requirements, even though India is not a signatory. The possibility of grandchildren earning royalties does not serve as an incentive for shutterbugs to take more photos or better photos. It is not even clear if one can monetise the average photo after the first decade. Therefore, the global public domain has been substantially impoverished, without any evidence that this will make the photographers reciprocally wealthier.<br /><br />It does not stop there. In the age of hip-hop, trance, jhankar beats and turntables, one would have hoped that our law-makers would at least get the provision for “cover versions” or “remixes” right. Cover versions in India are doubly useful both in terms of aesthetics and profits — and yet the relevant provision can only be described as mediaeval. Cover versions can be produced only after a gap of five years; they have to be restricted to the same medium as the original; payment from them must be made in advance for 5,000 copies (should all those who sang commercially viable cover violations of “Kolaveri Di” be considered lawbreakers?); and there are strict limits on what are acceptable alterations to the original. The “alterations” have to be “reasonable” and “technically necessary”. Today, affordable yet sophisticated multimedia technologies allow teenagers to build professional sound recording studios in their bedrooms — and our government is seeking to restrict them to boring word-for-word and note-for-note covers.<br /><br />And it gets worse. Bowing to pressure from foreign publishers’ associations, the government deleted the “parallel importation” provision at the last minute. The inclusion of this provision would have made it clear that works reproduced with the rights-holders’ permission in other countries could be imported into India. Foreign publishers and their lobbyists went all-out with a propaganda campaign predicting a dystopia filled with pirated books, surplus books dumped from overseas and starving, uncompensated authors. Had our government not caved, this clarification in law would have gone a long way in dismantling distribution monopolies and made the market much more competitive. The resultant increase in choice and reduction in cost would have benefited everyone. Human Resources Development Minister Sibal promised both Houses during the passage of the amendment that he would revisit this, and let’s hope he does so — especially for our libraries and our second-hand book stores, and for the students and disabled amongst us.</p>
<p>The writer is at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. <a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunil-abraham-copyright-amendment-badcould-have-been-much-worse/476845/">Click</a> to read the original published by Business Standard.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment</a>
</p>
No publishersunilCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-15T12:29:39ZBlog EntryA Ludicrous Ban
https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban
<b>Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang have written an article for the Open Magazine about the bizarre ways in which the Internet is regulated in 21st century India. </b>
<p>Small acts can have outsize consequences. In 15th century England, Richard III lamented that for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. In 21st century India, the question is this: for want of copyright protection for a single film, will the whole Internet be lost? On 29 March 2012, the Madras High Court issued an order whose effect Internet users in the country are still reeling from. As we go to press, most Internet users in India are unable to access a number of popular websites that millions of people around the world use every day. These banned websites are not forums for human trafficking or illegal weapon sales, but merely extensions of ordinary human activity like learning, sharing and growing—activities that are particularly well facilitated by the Internet. That the websites have been banned is of great concern; that the order purportedly banning them, and its effect, are both inexplicable and badly understood is of greater concern still.</p>
<p>How did we get here?</p>
<p>These are the facts. Earlier in the year, a little-known Chennai firm called Copyright Labs filed a petition on behalf of RK Productions, seeking protection for their client’s upcoming release—the Tamil film 3—against copyright infringement on the Internet. The film had not opened to audiences yet; the petition sought pre-emptive protection. In response, the Madras High Court passed a ‘John Doe’ order—John Doe being American shorthand for the anonymous everyman—which has a wide, sweeping scope and is designed to protect against potential offences by necessarily nameless persons, or in other words, everyone. The order applied to several Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as the aforesaid nameless persons (the John Doe of India is, apparently, ‘Ashok Kumar’), binding them, and their heirs, assignees, representatives and the whole shebang, against infringing copyright in relation to the film on networks they administer.</p>
<p>In apparent compliance with the John Doe order, Indian ISPs reacted with obsequious haste, in singular—and totally arbitrary—fashion. Between them, they have blocked a range of torrent sites (like the Pirate Bay, which is always Target No. 1, regardless of the circumstances), a few video-sharing sites like Vimeo and DailyMotion, and for good measure, some unrelated and completely irrelevant websites such as Xmarks, which allows users to share and sync bookmarks, and Pastebin, a service to store text and code. The weirdest aspect of this countrywide clampdown on a large chunk of the Internet is that the Madras High Court order did not actually specify any websites to block at all. How—and <em>why</em>—the ISPs zeroed in on these particular entities remains a mystery.</p>
<p>The Pirate Bay certainly hosts large amounts of pirated material, but it is also in some part a way to distribute legitimate content legitimately; Vimeo, on the other hand, is the distribution channel of choice for independent films uploaded by the filmmakers themselves; Pastebin has strict policies that are respectful of copyright and is mostly used by free and open source developers to tweak and relay copyright-free software. The sweep of this clampdown by the ISPs defies logic by deeming <em>everything</em> illegal: the wedding video that we cherish and put up to share with our friends, the small, independently financed film we wish to distribute electronically, the piece of free and open source software we just improved upon and would like the world to know about. Luckily for us, any blocking action imposed by local ISPs can be easily subverted by going through a virtual private network—a proxy—and if you’d like to see just how easy and quick this is to execute, please go to http://anonymouse.org. You’re welcome.</p>
<p>But first, the law. There is some confusion as to whether blocking whole websites for copyright infringement is legally permissible, and the answer is mostly no—and partly yes. The procedure for blocking websites in India is governed by Section 69A of the Information Techno- logy Act 2000, as amended in 2008 (the IT Act). Section 69A of the IT Act gives the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of very specific circumstances, namely: a) in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of lndia, b) for the defence of India, c) for the security of the State, d) for friendly relations with foreign States, e) for public order, or f) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to the previous points. Failure to comply with a blocking order thus issued is punishable by imprisonment and fines.</p>
<p>Importantly, however, <em>neither</em> copyright infringement nor obscenity (the other popular trigger for censorious actions) is listed as grounds for which a website may be blocked. Sure, the IT Act has specific provisions that lay out the consequences of transmitting obscene material and the infringement of copyright, but being blocked is not one of them. On the basis of its powers under Section 69A(2), the government has laid out procedures for blocking websites and notified the Information Technology Rules, 2009 (with the ‘Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public’), as well as designated nodal officers who can receive these complaints under the Act.</p>
<p>Section 6 of these IT Rules lays out a clear procedure for initiating and implementing a block. The procedure not only involves a thorough examination of the claims, but also reiterates the grounds under which a request for a block might be permissible, namely, the conditions laid out in the IT Act. Section 7 of the same IT Rules lays out the procedure for examination of the request and places it in the hands of a committee; the procedure involves the participation of several high-ranking officials and outlines detailed steps, such as contacting the potentially offending parties and giving them time to respond or take action as appropriate, only after which blocking may be deployed if still necessary.</p>
<p>The law is clear that copyright infringement cannot be legitimate grounds for the blocking of a website. Section 79 of the IT Act, in fact, explicitly provides safe harbour for ISPs, though the controversial Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011, have made a mockery of this section. These Intermediary Rules are currently the subject of heated debate, with many civil society organisations and even some parliamentarians calling for them to be repealed. (You can learn more about the protests at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.it2011.in">www.it2011.in</a>).</p>
<p>As things stand, a copyright holder can ask for the removal of infringing content by sending a take-down notice under the provisions of the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, however flawed they are, or by asking for a John Doe order. A take-down notice is a complaint by the copyright holder to a website, indicating the specific uniform resource locator (URL) where the infringement is allegedly happening. It is a procedure further reinforced in the 2012 amendment to the Indian Copyright Act, which reiterates the rights of intermediaries, such as ISPs, to transmit any potentially infringing content until a take-down notice is sent and examined. A John Doe order, by its wide, sweeping nature, is normally exercised with the greatest caution, and only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. John Doe orders do not provide for public examination and discussion of claims; they do not allow any other side—other than the petitioning party—to state their case; and they can be badly misunderstood by the parties involved, as vividly demonstrated in this case.</p>
<p>In this case, both the petition and the order are questionable in several ways. The Tamil film 3—starring Dhanush and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajini- kanth’s daughter Aishwarya—is not exceptional. It is one of the hundreds of Tamil films made this year, following on from the thousands of Tamil films made thus far. There is no particular reason why this film alone is worthy of a John Doe order. Ironically, it is exceptional only in that until Copyright Labs’ petition, the film served as a working demonstration of the benefits of a free and open Internet: the reason we knew of the film was the massive publicity generated by the viral hit ‘Kolaveri Di’—a song whose popularity spiralled by being shared freely and widely, regardless of copyright ownership. In the case of ‘Kolaveri Di,’ the producers saw the piracy of the song as publicity, and encouraged it. Then, it would seem, they decided that any piracy of the film was, well, piracy—and decided to stop it in the most insensible and ruthless manner possible. And there you have it: not only can you now have your cake and eat it too, you can also smash it in the faces of millions of users with impunity.</p>
<p>Copyright Labs, the previously unknown firm in Chennai that acted for the producers of 3 appears to be run by one Harish Ram, whose Twitter feed covers the catastrophe in revealing detail. Facing the wrath of fellow tweeters who were outraged at their inability to access their favourite websites, his collected responses on the handle @harishramlh instructively outline the disastrous way by which the court order he wanted has been implemented. Harish claims that his firm was forced to take action because infringing sites “don’t respond”. His cry for help would be plausible except for one inconvenient detail: the film 3 released on 30 March 2012, and the John Doe order was obtained on 29 March 2012—a day <em>before</em> the film’s release. What kind of piracy could Copyright Labs have been trying to battle unsuccessfully prior to the film’s release? There are instances of pre-screening prints of a film making it to torrent sites, though these are rare. Most often, the piracy of a film only happens after its public release. At the time of Copyright Labs’ petition, it is likely that very few or no take-down notices had been served because very few or no infringing acts had been committed yet: this is the very basis of the petition and ensuing order. (A quick search on Pirate Bay confirms that the only torrents related to the film are dated after its release, and not before). A little while later, perhaps upon discovering that he too cannot watch his best friend’s wedding video on Vimeo, Harish casually tweets that he has “written to unblock the whole site and block only specific piracy links” and presto, Vimeo is unblocked.</p>
<p>Regulators, take note. This is how the Internet is governed in 21st century India: by the fluctuating whims of an excited young man in Chennai in possession of a court order he neither deserves nor understands.</p>
<p>Thanks to the fact that our governments and corporations are constantly fantasising about how to censor our Internet (and frequently succeeding), the people who bring us the Internet, the hapless ISPs, have been beaten into submission; they now jump to the mildest murmur of reproach with wildly imaginative and unduly overreaching reactions. The last thing we need in an online environment full of dirty tricks is more dirty tricks. If anyone in power has any desire to keep the Internet working for the millions of Indians who prosper by it, safe harbour for ISPs must be restored in the IT Act—and the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules must be repealed.</p>
<p>Our courts cannot be used as quack-houses to buy pills for imaginary problems. The copyright industry is not a sick patient; it’s just a hypochondriac. Films don’t fail because of piracy; they fail because they’re not worth watching. The most popular films in this country are also the most pirated, and yet they remain money-spinners. The real problem is the unbending inability of this industry to adjust to the world; to the Internet; to the life-changing technologies that human beings have witnessed and embraced and prospered by over the past two decades. Instead of responding to these changes creatively, film producers and music distributors think that digging in their heels and acting like petulant children is going to delude consumers into seeing them as something grander than they are. The reality is that they are simply packers of culture and knowledge who aren’t even wrapping up their products competently. For now, though, these children have been given a nuclear bomb to play with, and they just used it to kill a cockroach. Beware the radiation.</p>
<p><em>Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher at the Alternative Law Forum; Achal Prabhala is a writer and researcher in Bangalore</em></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/a-ludicrous-ban#.T8wh4gZuXto.twitter">Click</a> to read the original published in the Open Magazine on June 2, 2012</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherAchal Prabhala and Lawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-04T04:22:11ZBlog EntryAn FAQ on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, for the Benefit of Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012
<b>The Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 introduced certain provisions for the benefit of persons with disabilities and as it has been passed by both houses of parliament (By the Rajya Sabha on May 17, 2012 and the Lok Sabha on May 22, 2012). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
</p>
<ol><li><strong>Who does this amendment benefit?</strong><br />This amendment benefits all persons with disabilities who cannot enjoy works in their normal format thus amongst others it would cover totally blind, low vision, learning disabled, the deaf and hard of hearing and orthopedically challenged people who are unable to hold books or turn its pages.</li><li><strong>What can be done now that was not possible earlier? </strong><br />Persons with disabilities who cannot access a work in their normal format and organizations can suitably modify a work so as to make it accessible to meet the specific needs of the person with disability. This means that a standard printed book, for example may be converted to an alternate format (not necessarily a special format) including Braille, large font, text readable by screen reader, audio (be it synthetic audio or human voice recording) without seeking the permission of the rights holder.</li><li><strong>How is this different?</strong> <br />In the past, any alternate format creation would have been an infringement unless it was backed up by prior written permission from the rights holder. One had to seek the permission if one had to be on the right side of the law. Now these permissions are not needed for non-profit conversion and distribution.</li><li><strong>Are there any restrictions? Yes, there are reasonable restrictions such as:</strong><br />(a) conversion should be a not for profit activity. In case it is a for profit activity, there is a separate clause under which a special license can be obtained.- <br />(b) The accessible format copy has to be distributed to a bonafide print impaired person or organizations that serve them.<br />(c) reasonable precaution need to be taken by all that the accessible copy is not misused commercially.</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of a “work”?</strong><br />A work means:<br />(a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;<br />(b) a cinematograph film; <br />(c) and a sound recording;<br />It includes all works which are available in India in the normal channels of business.</li><li><strong>What activities are permitted for the benefit of persons with disabilities?</strong><br />The adaption, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format to facilitate persons with disability to access works.</li><li><strong>Is permission required from publishers to undertake the above activities?</strong><br />No, permission from publishers are not required to undertake the above activities subject to the points given below.</li><li><strong>What are “accessible formats”?</strong><br />Accessible formats include, Braille, audio (be it synthetic audio or human voice recording), Daisy, accessible pdf, large print, movies with subtitles etc.</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of “adaption”?</strong><br />“Adaption” in relation to any work, mean any use of such work involving its re-arrangement or alteration. Conversion of a work into an accessible format would be treated as an adaption</li><li><strong>What is the meaning of “communication to the public”?</strong><br />"Communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work. This includes making the accessible format copy available over the Internet or distributing it from a website.</li><li><strong>Who can create and distribute accessible formats?</strong><br />(a) Any person can create and distribute accessible formats if it is done for facilitating access by persons with disabilities. Parents, friends and persons with disabilities themselves can create accessible formats.<br />(b) An organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities can also create and distribute accessible formats.</li><li><strong>Are there any preconditions on the type of organization that can undertake the activities?</strong><br />Yes, the organization must satisfy one of the following conditions to undertake the activities: <br />(a) The organization must be registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and work for the benefit of persons with disability; or<br />(b) The organization must be recognized under Chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; or <br />(c) The organization must receive grants from the Government for facilitating access to persons with disabilities; or <br />(d) The organization must be an educational institution or library or archives recognized by the Government.</li><li><strong>Can accessible format copies be shared between persons with disabilities? </strong><br />Yes, they can be shared</li><li><strong>Can any of the activities be undertaken for profit?</strong><br />No, for profit activities require a separate license from the copyright board. This license <span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>will prescribe several conditions including the royalty, if any, that must be paid. For further details, see point 23 of this note.</li><li><strong>Can the costs of production of accessible format copies be recovered?</strong><br />Yes the cost can be recovered.</li><li><strong>Does this mean that the publisher has to give you a soft copy? </strong><br />No. Publishers are not required to give a soft copy under the amendment. </li><li><strong>What steps are required to be taken by organizations who undertake the activity?</strong><br />The organization must ensure that the copies of works in such accessible format are made available to persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business. </li><li><strong>Can works be simplified so that people with psycho social disabilities or intellectual disabilities can enjoy the work?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can subtitles be added to movies and other audio visual work for the benefit of the deaf/hard of hearing?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can audio descriptions be added to movies and other audio visual works for the benefit of the blind/low vision?</strong><br />Yes, this can be done since this will fall within the meaning of “adaption” as given above.</li><li><strong>Can an organization in India import or export accessible format copies from/to organizations and beneficiaries abroad?</strong><br />The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, does not address import and export and this depends on various factors and legal preconditions. In this case, it is advisable to check with your legal advisors before undertaking such an activity.</li><li><strong>What is the wording of the section?</strong><br />Section 52 (1)The following act shall not be an infringement of copyright, namely:<br />(zb) the adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, by —<br />(i) any person to facilitate persons with disability to access to works including sharing with any person with disability of such accessible format for private or personal use, educational purpose or research; or<br />(ii) any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities in case the normal format prevents the enjoyment of such works by such persons:<br />Provided that the copies of the works in such accessible format are made available to the persons with disabilities on a nonprofit basis but to recover only the cost of production:<br />Provided further that the organization shall ensure that the copies of works in such accessible format are used by persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business.<br />Explanation. For the purposes of the sub-clause, “any organization” includes an organization registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and working for the benefit of persons with disability or recognized under Chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and <span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>Full Participation) Act, 1995 or receiving grants from the Government for facilitating access to persons with disabilities or an educational institution or library or archives recognized by the Government.</li><li><strong>What is the wording of the section relating to for profit activity?</strong><br />³31B. (1) Any person working for the benefit of persons with disability on a profit basis or for business may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (zb) of sub-section (1) of section 52 does not apply and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to dispose of such application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application.<br />(2) The Copyright Board may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), inquire, or direct such inquiry as it considers necessary to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith.<br />(3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. <br />(4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued including the rate or royalty: Provided that where the Copyright Board has issued such a compulsory license it may, on a further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owners of rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. </li></ol>
<hr />
<h3>Compiled By:</h3>
<div>
<div>
<ol><li>The Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged (XRCVC)<br />Dr. Sam Taraporevala <br />St. Xavier’s College, 5 Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001<br />#+91-22-22623298/ + 91- 9967028769 <br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:sam@xrcvc.org">sam@xrcvc.org</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:info@xrcvc.org">info@xrcvc.org</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.xrcvc.org">www.xrcvc.org</a></li><li>Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy<br />Rahul Cherian<br />12/21 Custain Beach Road, Santhome,<br />Chennai – 600004<br /># +91 9840357991<br /><a class="external-link" href="mailto:rahul.cherian@inclusiveplanet.com">rahul.cherian@inclusiveplanet.com</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.inclusiveplanet.org.in">www.inclusiveplanet.org.in</a></li></ol>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/faq-on-copyright-amendment-bill-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherDr. Sam Taraporevala and Rahul CherianAccessibilityCopyright2012-06-02T04:35:51ZBlog EntryThe International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles
https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright
<b>This event organised by Max Planck Institute was held in Munich, Germany on May 14 and 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event.</b>
<h2>List of Participants</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Mr. Olatunji Babatunde Adetula</td>
<td>Director, Nigerian Copyright Commission</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa</td>
<td>African University for Science and Technology & University of California School of Law, Irvine</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Michael W. Carroll</td>
<td>Professor of Law, <br />Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property,<br />American University, Washington College of Law</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Alberto Cerda Silva</td>
<td>S.J.D. Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Research Associate,Knowledge Ecology International<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Vera Franz</td>
<td>Senior Program Manager<br />Open Society Information Program<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Christophe Geiger</td>
<td>Associate Professor<br />Director General<br />Director of the Research Department<br />CEIPI, Université de Strasbourg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Daniel Gervais</td>
<td>FedEx Research Professor of Law<br />Co-Director, Vanderbilt Intellectual Property Program<br />Vanderbilt University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Cristiana Gonzalez</td>
<td>Senior Researcher<br />Universidade de São Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Teresa Hackett</td>
<td>Programme Manager EIFL</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty</td>
<td>Managing Director<br />Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich<br />Honorary Professor at the University of Munich<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Zorina Khan</td>
<td>Professor<br />Department of Economics<br />Bowdoin College</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Kaya Köklü</td>
<td>Senior Research Fellow<br />Intellectual Property and Competition Law<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Eniko Kovacs</td>
<td>Program Manager<br />Academic Fellowship Program, HESP<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif</td>
<td>Intellectual Property and Technology Senior<br />Programme Manager<br />International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Mayara Nascimento Santos Leal</td>
<td>Division of Intellectual Property<br />Economic Department<br />Ministry of External Relations, Brazil</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Lydia Loren</td>
<td>Professor of Law<br />Kay Kitagawa & Andy Johnson-Laird IP Faculty Scholar<br />Lewis & Clark Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Viviana Munoz Tellez</td>
<td>Programme Officer, IAKP<br />The South Centre</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Ruth Okediji</td>
<td>William L. Prosser Professor of Law<br />University of Minnesota Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Pranesh Prakash</td>
<td>Programme Manager<br />The Center for Internet and Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. G.R. Raghavender</td>
<td>Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP & CR)<br />Copyright Office<br />Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Jerome H. Reichman</td>
<td>Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law<br />Duke University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Manon Ress</td>
<td>Director of Information Society Projects <br />Knowledge Ecology International</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Carolina Rossini</td>
<td>Senior Fellow at GPOPAI, University of Sao Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Susan Strba</td>
<td>Expert and Author, Copyright L&Es for Education in Africa</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Luis Villaroel Villalon</td>
<td>Director de Investigación Corporación Innovarte</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Moktar Warida</td>
<td>First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the United Nations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Raquel Xalabarder Plantada</td>
<td>Director, Learning Resources<br />Vice President’s Office, Faculty and Academic Organization<br />Open University of Catalonia</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Workshop Associates</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Lindsey Niznik</td>
<td>Senior, University of Minnesota</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peju Solarin</td>
<td>Doctoral Candidate<br />International Max Planck Research School on Retaliation, Mediation, and Punishment, Max Planck Institute </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ceipi.edu/uploads/media/Munich_Workshop_List_of_Participants_5_9_12-1.pdf">See the original here</a>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright'>https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-01T04:29:36ZNews ItemCopyright Amendments – Empowering the Print Disabled
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments
<b>The much anticipated Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012 was passed with a few changes in the Rajya Sabha on 17th May 2012 after a very spirited debate and passed by the Lok Sabha on the 22nd May 2012 with unanimous consensus. </b>
<p>The Bill now requires presidential assent to become a law. The Bill discusses various key aspects which have not been addressed in the present copyright regime due to reasons such as changing international standards, technological and scientific advancements. This blog post is limited to the new Section 52(1)(zb) which creates a new copyright exception for the benefit of persons with print disabilities, including persons with visual impairment and dyslexia.</p>
<p>Prior to the inclusive of Section 52(1)(zb) that the owner of copyright in a work had the exclusive right to adapt, make copies, communicate to the public etc. the work. Therefore, any conversion of a book into accessible formats such as Braille, Daisy, audio books, etc., for the benefit of persons with print disabilities could be undertaken only by the owner of copyright or with the permission of the owner of copyright. More often than not, owners of copyright are unwilling or disinterested to either undertake the conversion and sale of such accessible format copies or permit such conversion, for reasons varying from lack of profitability to limited target audience.</p>
<p>The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012 does away with the necessity to seek the consent of the publishers for converting their books into accessible formats. To this extent, the Bill provides that it would not be an infringement of copyright for any person or any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities and on a non-profit basis to create accessible format copies or distribute them to persons with disabilities who cannot enjoy the work in their normal formats. This provision is very wide and inclusive in its scope and also has some protection built in against unauthorized use by non-beneficiaries of the exception. For instance, the books so provided in accessible formats shall be for private or personal use, education or research only. Moreover, the persons or organizations providing such services have the obligation to ensure that such converted formats do not enter the mainstream business channels. While the new exception permits the recovery of the expenses incurred in converting the books, they do not permit the making of any profit under the exception. However, under a new Section 31 B any person working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities on a profit basis or for business can undertake conversion and distribution after obtaining a license from the Copyright Board in accordance with the procedure laid down in that section.</p>
<p>It is to be noted that the original wording of the amendment as proposed by the Copyright Office in 2006 was extremely limited in that it allowed conversion only into “specialized formats designed for persons with disabilities” and not into "all formats" as is the case now. The problem with "specialized formats" is that many persons with print disabilities, including those with dyslexia, person who lost their eyesight at a later age etc. cannot use specialized formats such as Braille and use mainstream formats such as .pdf or audio. By limiting conversion into “specialized formats” such as Braille, a large number of potential beneficiaries would have been excluded from the amendment. In order the attempt to change the wording of the proposed amendment to reflect technological developments and also benefit a larger number of persons with disabilities, the nationwide Right to Read Campaign was launched by Inclusive Planet, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Daisy Forum of India. As a result of sustained campaigning and high level advocacy during which over 70 Members of Parliament were met, we were invited to present evidence before the Parliamentary Standing Committee which fully endorsed our concerns. The Copyright Office then changed the wording from the 2006 wording to the current wording. It still took about a year and half for the amendments to be passed by both Houses of Parliament.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the Copyright Amendment Bill will enable persons with disabilities to be able to exercise their right to knowledge on an equal basis with others. It also shows that a small group of committed disability activists with the support of a handful of lawyers and the tool of high level advocacy can bring about effective change.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityCopyright2012-09-07T11:11:26ZBlog EntryWill the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?
https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist
<b>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/28/will-the-copyright-law-help-the-starving-artist/">This article by Margherita Stancati was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.</p>
<p>"I remember when Ustad Bismillah Khan" – a legendary Indian classical musician – "came to me and said that he did not have money to pay his rent," Indian Human Resources Minister Kapil Sibal <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bollywood-cheers-as-lok-sabha-passes-copyright-bill_1692466">recently told Parliament</a>.</p>
<p>At the time, Mr. Sibal said he solved the problem by writing him a check.</p>
<p>The government hopes that changes introduced to India’s 1957 Copyright Act will allow composers and other artists to do away with such acts of charity. Parliament passed the bill amending the copyright act last week.</p>
<p>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</p>
<p>Earlier, "artists would typically give all the rights to the producer. It was called a work for hire," says Anish Dayal, a Supreme Court lawyer who specializes in media and entertainment legislation.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">amendments</a> to the act means that "even if they want to give rights to producers, they can’t," adds Mr. Dayal.</p>
<p>The way the law phrases this is a little confusing. An amendment to section 18 of the act says that authors of literary or musical works featured in movies shall "receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis" with others who have copyright over the work (such as producers.) It’s not clear whether "equal basis" means 50% or whether it depends on the number of people with whom the royalties are shared.</p>
<p>The amended law also makes it compulsory for radio and broadcasters to pay royalties every time they air a recording.</p>
<p>The biggest impact of these changes will be on India’s film industry, especially on the lyricists and composers of Bollywood music, who have long lobbied for rights over their work.</p>
<p>Before the amendments were given a green light, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2_dw7OmS2U&feature=youtu.be">Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar described the condition artists worked in as "bonded labor</a>." Recently addressing lawmakers in the upper house of Parliament, where he holds an honorary seat, Mr. Akhtar shared a long list of cases of famed Indian musicians and composers who lived and died in penury. He named Shailendra, a popular 1950s Hindi lyricist, and Omkar Prasad Nayyar, a composer of movie scores.</p>
<p>For Paromita Vohra, a Mumbai-based documentary filmmaker, said changes to the law mark a first step towards making art production “more equal” by giving artists more rights over their work. "It’s about time," says Ms. Vohra, who last year made a <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/02/10/the-partners-in-copyright-crime/">film on copyright in the world of art</a>.</p>
<p>"Those who have the money are more powerful than those who make the arts. The act recognizes this, it addresses a power balance," she adds, describing this as a "philosophical change" in the law.</p>
<p>But she says this alone is not enough. "Lawyers are good at circumventing the law," she claims. Still, artists willing to fight for their rights "now have the law to fall back on," she adds.</p>
<p>Stronger labor unions, Ms. Vohra says, would make it easier for artists to make the most of the new legislation. "When that happens, I think the law will be very helpful."</p>
<p>Not all were pleased with the changes on royalties. <a class="external-link" href="http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250070212">Adarsh Gupta of Saregama</a>, a music production company, said the law is "extremely unfair to the film and music industry" and that it paves the way to litigation.</p>
<p>Other changes introduced in the act include tighter regulations on cover versions, including a clause that raises the time period after which covers are legally allowed from two to five years.</p>
<p>Critics say these restrictions are excessive and at odds with art produced in the digital era.</p>
<p>"This ignores present-day realities," Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet & Society wrote in his <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012" class="external-link">analysis of the amended copyright bill</a>. He used the example of the hit tune Kolaveri Di, which was covered countless times. "The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars," he adds.</p>
<p>The act also removes copyright requirements for Braille or for other works of art adapted for people with disabilities.</p>
<p>What the amended law does not include is a clause that many in the <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/01/13/is-the-copyright-bill-bad-for-indian-readers/">Indian publishing industry feared may have made them redundant</a>. The proposed amendment would have allowed non-Indian publishing houses distribute their books in India, removing the territorial exclusivity of local publishers. This clause did not make it in the final version of the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist'>https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-29T03:46:23ZNews ItemCopyright Madness
https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness
<b>Prompted by courts and piracy-fearing businesses, Indian ISPs have taken down popular, legitimate websites. This Op-ed by Lawrence Liang and Achal Prabhala was published in the Indian Express on May 22, 2012.</b>
<p>The funniest thing about the “ban” on torrent sites and video-sharing
sites by a Madras high court order of March 29 is that it doesn’t work.
Naturally: we’re talking about the Internet, whose users and makers
have fended off twisted judgments, corporate takeovers, undue state
control and outrageous censorship since its inception. So if you
currently live in India and want to read the new Paulo Coelho bestseller
on his preferred distribution service — otherwise known as The Pirate
Bay — or want to watch your own wedding video on Vimeo, the platform of
choice for independent filmmakers, then all you have to do is go through
one of the many hundreds of virtual private networks that provide a
workaround, most of which are free and take about two seconds to
execute.<br />
<br />
Sadly, this is where the fun ends. As you read this, Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) across the country will have put in place an
overreaching, wildly imaginative and totally ludicrous ban on just about
everything the Internet facilitates human beings to excel at —
learning, sharing and growing. The real danger is not the effect of the
court order or its interpretation, but the fact that it is a part of a
disturbing trend in which copyright owners presume that it is piracy
that results in the failure of their films. This, coming from an
industry that regularly churns out facsimiles of Hollywood hits and
renders them original works worthy of copyright protection. Let’s get
this clear: films fail when they are bad. Films that hit the box office
jackpot do so in spite of piracy simply because they are good.<br />
<br />
A quick recap of the facts. Earlier this year, a Chennai firm called
Copyright Labs, acting on behalf of its client R.K. Productions, applied
to the Madras High Court to protect the Tamil film 3 — starring Dhanush
and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajnikanth’s daughter, Aishwarya —
from copyright infringement on the Internet. The petition was filed even
before the film’s release; the protection sought was pre-emptive. The
Madras high court passed a “John Doe” order, which is, in essence, a
sweeping set of protections granted against unknown potential offenders
in the future, without giving any other interested party the chance to
be heard. Any order that does not give the other side a chance to be
heard — without even knowing who the other side is — has to be exercised
judiciously; if every new film produced in India released with an ex
parte order every Friday, principles of natural justice would be
diluted, to the larger detriment of the legal system itself.<br />
<br />
This is not the first John Doe order pertaining to copyright that has
been issued in India, but it is certainly the most consequential.
Previous orders (in relation to copyright) are relatively recent, and
have been passed over the last few years in relation to a single motion
picture and to music at large — but their effects have been relatively
contained. The problem with John Doe orders is that by their overly
broad and sweeping nature, they extend to a range of non-infringing
activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their
net. And speaking of legal acts, the ultimate irony here is that the
first we heard of this film was through the viral hit song Kolaveri Di —
distributed at will with the blessings of the filmmakers — which
created massive pre-release publicity for 3. Consider then that this
order is not quite the slaying of the golden goose, but a gag order on
the animal kingdom since there could be a wild animal lurking amidst the
geese.<br />
<br />
Reading through the list of websites that ISPs have banned — as Nikhil
Pahwa carefully details on Medianama — is an eye-popping exercise. The
Pirate Bay, everyone’s favourite hallucination, is on it. So are
Isohunt, and a few others. Two video-sharing sites are named, Vimeo and
DailyMotion. (Never mind that all these websites house a sizeable
percentage of perfectly legitimate content that is user-generated and
user-uploaded and distributed with the full permission of the copyright
owner.) Inexplicably, the ISPs — or some mysterious intermediaries
between the Madras high court and them — in their wisdom, march forth
and ban a website that allows the sharing of bookmarks (Xmarks), and
another that primarily exists for Twitter users who want to exceed their
140 character limit (Pastebin), regardless of their complete
inapplicability in this situation.<br />
<br />
India’s copyright act allows owners of content the right to prevent
infringement through the use of injunctions, but these injunctions have
to be narrowly construed and applied only to specific instances of
infringement. Which is to say, take down the infringing video, not the
whole website, and don’t intimidate the host. When injunctions threaten
freedom of speech and expression, then free speech should necessarily
trump copyright claims — and the courts cannot be used as convenient
shopping forums for maladies that don’t exist. The real issue here is
that copyright industries have to come up with better business models
that take cognisance of technologies that allow people to exchange
information. The course we are currently on will only result in
strangling technology and stifling innovation and creativity.</p>
<p>Read the original published by the Indian Express <a class="external-link" href="http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22copyright-madness%22/952088/">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence Liang and Achal PrabhalaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-30T03:46:24ZBlog EntryGandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright
https://cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright
<b>To commemorate Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary, the Centre for Internet and Society cordially invites you to a talk by Prof. Shyamkrishna Balganesh of the University of Pennsylvania on Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright on 30 January 2012 at 6.00 p.m.
</b>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>When the copyright on Rabindranath Tagore's writings were to expire, his estate sought (and got) an extension in copyright term. But when the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi's writings were to expire, the trustees did not seek such an extension, in deference to Gandhi's views on copyright. On the cover of the first English edition of the Hind Swaraj, it states: "No Rights Reserved". Was Gandhi a Wikipedian at heart, and a prophet who foresaw the 'copyright wars' and had his own visions of how far free culture and free knowledge activism could and could not go?</p>
<h3>Description<br /></h3>
<p>Central to modern discussions of copyright law is the conflict between copyright’s role as a market-based mechanism of cultural production and its detrimental effects on access to knowledge, free speech, and cultural creativity. So divisive is this debate in the world of copyright law today that some have characterized it as the ongoing “copyright wars”. In January 2009, when copyright in all of Gandhi’s works expired, to the absolute surprise of many, the Navjivan Trust,to whom Gandhi had transferred the copyright in his works, chose not to seek a statutory extension of copyright.</p>
<p>The Trust’s firm decision rested in large part on Gandhi’s unease with copyright law, and his reluctant acceptance of its benefits. Gandhi’s opinions on copyright law reveal a rather concerted attempt to grapple with the innumerable public and private trade-offs that are central to the institution, which are today seen as the very basis of the copyright wars. Much like Gandhi’s views on other issues, they reveal a pragmatism, nuance, and creative engagement, which likely emanate from Gandhi’s training as a lawyer. Instead of simplistically rejecting the institution in its entirety, Gandhi saw copyright law for what it is—an important social compromise—and sought to engage with it in a way that tracked his beliefs on other issues.<br /><br />This talk will argue that the nuances of Gandhi’s engagement with copyright law hold important lessons for thinking about copyright law in society, and for managing its complex trade-offs. Gandhi’s thinking on the topic anticipated many of the modern dilemmas about the structure and function of copyright law--such as the role of exclusivity, the importance of control and integrity, and the costs and benefits of licensing revenues. And while Gandhi may not have had a clear (or unambiguously correct) solution to any of them, he almost certainly asked the right questions.</p>
<h3>About the Speaker</h3>
<p>Shyam Balganesh’s scholarship focuses on understanding how intellectual property and innovation policy can benefit from the use of ideas, concepts and structures from different areas of the common law. His most recent work tries to understand copyright law’s pre-requisite of “copying” for liability, as a mechanism of pluralistic decision-making that allows it to incorporate both utilitarian and rightsbased considerations into its functioning.</p>
<p>Balganesh received his J.D. from the Yale Law School, where he was an Articles and Essays Editor of the Yale Law Journal and a Student Fellow at the Information Society Project (ISP). Prior to that he spent two years as a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, and received a B.C.L. and an M.Phil in Law from Oxford University.</p>
<p>His recent publications include: ‘“Hot News’: The Enduring Myth of Property in News,” 111 Columbia Law Review 419 (2011); “The Pragmatic Incrementalism of Common Law Intellectual Property,” 63 Vanderbilt Law Review 1543 (2010); and “Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives,” 122 Harvard Law Review 1569 (2009), among others. He is also currently editing a collection of scholarly essays on the topic of intellectual property and the common law, scheduled to be published by the Cambridge University Press in 2012.</p>
<p><strong>VIDEO</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLshX8A.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed style="display:none" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLshX8A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaEvent TypeVideoCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-04-28T04:11:01ZEventCIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that some of the proposals on future work could be worded better to reflect their true meaning. For instance, one of the proposal calls for control of the problem of "parallel import". However, "parallel importation" is actually allowed by both the TRIPS Agreement and by various other instruments such as the Berne Convention? Indeed, calling “parallel import” a problem is like calling "exceptions and limitations" a problem. This is a view that has been firmly rejected here at WIPO, especially post the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda. This, quite obviously, could not have been the intention of the proposal framers.</p>
<p>Further, the link between some of the proposals and the Development Agenda could be made clearer. It has been established that the Development Agenda is not just something for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to consider, but for all committees to make an integral part of their work.</p>
<p>I would also like to underscore the importance of evidence-based policy-making.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would like to mention that a report has already been commissioned by WIPO on intermediary liability, which was written by Prof. Lilian Edwards and was released in a side-event during SCCR 22, in June 2011.</p>
<p>If the ACE is going ahead with a study or an event, I would suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, who in his report to the UN Human Rights Council dealt in some depth with intermediary liability, be involved or invited.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsWIPO2011-12-01T15:30:38ZBlog EntryCIS Hosts Scanned Version of George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes
<b>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J), the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant is taking place on December 1, 2011. Amateur scanning of books often raises a lot of questions, around the issue of copyright. For this V/J13 is scanning George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes. The essay is in public domain in Russia, India and South Africa, but not in Europe and America due to copyright issues. CIS is hosting the scanned pages of the essay in public domain.</b>
<p>During the morning session DIY-made book scanner and OCR-software will be used to transform the scans into text files and in the afternoon session the digital material generated in the morning will be remixed.<br /><br />The main sessions can be followed online at the home page of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.vj13.constantvzw.org/site/">VJ13</a></p>
<h3>About VJ13</h3>
<p>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J) is the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant. Since 1997, Verbindingen/Jonctions combines high, low and no-tech strategies from utopian, contemporary, traditional and tribal cultures, free software, feminism and queer theories. V/J is an occasion to explore the space between thinking and doing, and the festival is always a mix of activities. It is an occasion to invite radio makers, artists, programmers, academics, Linux users, interface designers, urban explorers, performance artists, technicians, lawyers and others to experience each other’s practice, and to share their interests with a broad public of visitors.</p>
<p>V/J13 has been developed in collaboration with Le P’tit Ciné, Recyclart, Hacker Space Brussels (HSB), QO2, Renovas, Boutique de Quartier and Yves Poliart, Myriam Van Imschoot, Piet Zwart Institute: Networked Media.</p>
<p>Download the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes.zip" class="internal-link" title="Books vs Cigarettes">scanned version</a> (Zip files, 28091 kb)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-12-01T13:31:39ZBlog EntryComment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society. First, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election.<br /><br />And I would like to congratulate Prof. Sirenelli on his excellent presentation.<br /><br />I would like to flag a few points, though:</p>
<ol><li>One of the benefits of normal laws, as opposed to the soft/plastic laws, which he champions, is that normal laws are bound by procedures established by law, due process requirements, and principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the soft/plastic laws, which in essence are private agreements, are not.</li><li>The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion made it clear in his report to the UN Human Rights Council that the Internet is now an intergral part of citizens exercising their right of freedom of speech under national constitutions and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That report highlights that many initiatives on copyright infringement, including that of the French government with HADOPI and the UK, actually contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights</li><li>The right of privacy is also flagged by many as something that will have to be compromised if such private enforcement of copyright is encouraged.<br /></li></ol>
<p>I'd like to know Prof. Sirinelli's views on these three issues: due process, right of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsPiracyCensorshipWIPO2011-12-01T11:59:45ZBlog EntryStatement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.</p>
<p>We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<h3>Broadcasters Already Protected Online<br /></h3>
<p>Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.</p>
<p>Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.</p>
<p>The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.</p>
<p>Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.</p>
<h3>Support Countries' Concerns</h3>
<p>We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Chair.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-11-30T06:55:43ZBlog EntryOf Jesters, Clowns and Pranksters: YouTube and the Condition of Collaborative Authorship
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters
<b>The idea of a single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube, writes Nishant Shah in this peer reviewed essay published in the Journal of Moving Images, Number 8, December 2009.</b>
<div>
<p>The idea of the single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube. The recent state of controversies around YouTube, has foregrounded the question of authorship in collaborative conditions. Questions of who owns the particular videos and what is the role that the large communities of authorship play have not been resolved as the debaters have concentrated only on single videos and singular notions of authorship, dismissing the (this paper proposes) collaborators as jesters, clowns and pranksters, without recognizing their contribution to the videos.</p>
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>I shall begin by misquoting and possibly violating copyright regimes by invoking Dostoyevsky, to say that all dissimilar technologies are the same in their own way, but all similar technologies are uniquely different. Every technological innovation, but particularly innovations affecting authorship and the role of the author, brings with it a new set of anxieties and concerns. David Stewart, in his engrossing book on the history of technology and communication, for example, talks about how in the early years of postal service there were debates around who was the author of the mail that was being delivered. Through a particularly fascinating case that looked at a Lord in London holding the post office responsible for some objectionable mail delivered to his daughter, Stewart traces the origins of techno-neutrality and regulation to look upon technology as merely a bearer of knowledge – in this case, the mail – and the original author, this primordial figure that sits and writes or shoots or sings, as the only person upon whom the responsibility and hence also the credit can be placed.</p>
<p>Mark Joffe, in his movie The Man Who Sued God, introduces us to the case of Steve Myers, an ex-lawyer in Australia, who sues God because his boat is struck by lightning and his insurance company refuses to pay, claiming it to be an act of God. By claiming to be God’s representatives on Earth, the Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues are held to be the liable party, putting them in the difficult position of either having to pay out large sums of money, or prove that God does not exist. But more than anything else, it is the attribution of responsibility to one particular, identifiable entity that lies at the centre of the movie. Even in the pre-Internet world, one of the biggest sources of anxieties has been determining authorship and putting into place a knowledge apparatus that reinforces the need for such a condition. The question of authorship, while it surfaces in a number of contexts – copyright infringements, intellectual property right regimes, plagiarism, crediting and referencing industries, etc – is perhaps most interestingly manifest on video sharing social networking sites like YouTube and Myspace.</p>
<p>Rather than addressing what constitutes digital cinema or the future of celluloid, I would instead like to locate the emergence of the idea of authorship, through a historical examination of an ‘old media’. I will be looking at the early history of the book and the print revolution to argue that the condition of authorship that one presumes for the book, and subsequently, through a different trajectory, for cinema, is not something that was inherent to it; and in fact the early history of the book is filled with conflicts around the question of how you could attribute the book as an artefact to one individual author. By examining the conditions that enabled the establishment of the book as a stable object that can be linked to the author, I hope to return us to a different way of thinking about Youtube videos and the debates on authorship that surround it.</p>
<h3>YouTube and the question of authorship</h3>
<p>The world of YouTube stakeholders can roughly be divided into two camps: People who swear by it and people who swear at it. The camp has arisen mainly because of differences of opinions on who owns a YouTube video and the content therein. The critics of YouTube – largely recording companies and movie studios and distributors – argue that platforms like YouTube are killing their businesses, emptying their coffers, and are a direct threat to the sacred cow of all cultural productions – the livelihood and the integrity of the creative artist. They make claims that a site like YouTube infringes the copyright regimes because videos get published by somebody who has ripped it from another source, and often does no crediting. Also, that the sales of the music or the movies or television serials go down because of such activities.</p>
<p>One of the most recent infamous example that can be cited is the case of the Let’s Go Crazy Dancing video case, were the world literally went crazy. In early February 2007, Stephanie Lenz’s 13-month-old son started dancing. Pushing a walker across her kitchen floor, Holden Lenz started moving to the distinctive beat of a song by Prince, “Let’s Go Crazy.” <a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> Lenz wanted her mother to see the film so she did what any citizen of the 21st century would do: She uploaded the file to YouTube and sent her relatives and friends the link. They watched the video scores of times. It was a perfect YouTube moment: a community of laughs around a homemade video, readily shared with anyone who wanted to watch.</p>
<p>Sometime over the next four months, however, someone from Universal Music Group also watched Holden dance. Universal manages the copyrights of Prince. It fired off a letter to YouTube demanding that it remove the unauthorized “performance” of Prince’s music. YouTube, to avoid liability itself, complied. YouTube sent Lenz a notice that it was removing her video. She wondered, “Why?” What had she done wrong? Her questions reached the Electronic Frontier Foundation and then started the battle, where on Lenz’s behalf, the EFF lawyers sent a ‘counter-notice’ to YouTube, that no rights of Universal were violated by Holden’s dancing video. Lenz as the author of the video was concentrating on her son’s dancing and that the presence of Prince’s song was negligible and definitely fair use. Yet Universal’s lawyers insist to this day that sharing this home movie is wilful copyright infringement under the laws of the United States. On their view of the law, she is liable to a fine of up to $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of Holden dancing. They specifically state that Lenz is not the ‘original’ artist who made the music and thus she is appropriating authorship and violating the rights of the artist – Prince, to be identified as the creator of the song. The notice also informed her that they were unhappy with the ‘clowning’ around of Prince’s music which might offend his fan-base.</p>
<p>The questions which come to the fore are very obvious and not new to the history of legal debates on cinema: What is the content of the video? Who is the author of the video? Who watches the video? What are the intentions of the video? The supporters of the ‘Free as in Beer’ access movements and also of YouTube clearly point out the farcical condition of this battle. As Lawrence Lessig very eloquently points out in his essay on the ‘Defence of Piracy’.</p>
<p>How is it that sensible people, people no doubt educated at some of the best universities and law schools in the country, would come to think it a sane use of corporate resources to threaten the mother of a dancing 13-month-old? What is it that allows these lawyers and executives to take a case like this seriously, to believe there’s some important social or corporate reason to deploy the federal scheme of regulation called copyright to stop the spread of these images and music? “Let’s Go Crazy” indeed!<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<p>In another instance, which is a competition on YouTube between two videos to reach the coveted “first video to be seen 1 million times” status, brings again these question of the author and the pranksters. Avril Lavigne fans, on the release of her recent Single ‘Girlfriend’, started campaigning to make that video the first to be viewed 1 million times on YouTube. They put it in direct competition with the then most viewed video – ‘History of Dance’ – and started activities that violated the Terms of Service for YouTube. They embedded the videos in many sites and started websites which played the videos automatically. They even created a website which auto reloaded the video every fifteen minutes and encouraged fans to keep the website opened, abusing the power of broad band, while they are browsing, surfing, or even sleeping. The efforts paid off and Avril Lavigne’s ‘Girlfriend’, in July 2008, became the first video to be watched 1 million times in the history of YouTube. One would have thought that such publicity is what a distributor’s wet dreams are made of. However, just after the video reached the 1 million mark and entered the heights of popularity, YouTube received a notice from Times Warner, to remove the video because it was a copyright violation. They also demanded that all the other compilations and samplings which included the song be removed from YouTube. The supporters of the move, condemned the Lavigne fans as ‘pranksters’ or ‘jesters’ who were in for the cheap publicity, because they were not really creators of the video or the authors. In a startling Op-Ed titled ‘How Avril Lavigne Killed YouTube’ in the New York Times, a spokesperson for Times Warner suggested.</p>
<p>This is not respectable fan behaviour. A fan is somebody who loves and worships the author and not somebody who pretends to be the author. The avrilelavignebandaid group just turned out to be a group of pirates who passed off Lavigne’s video as their own and went on to promote it, forgetting the fact that they were using a democratic platform like YouTube for activities which can only be called theft!</p>
<p>Predictably, the debate on the question of authorship takes place in a rather somber tone, whether it is the zealous claims of monopoly of production and authorship that the established industries claim for themselves, or the passionate defenses of the YouTubeians. What remains constant through the entire process is the fact that the idea of a singular, identifiable author remains stable and unchallenged. I would like to take a slightly different track here, and try and see how we can think the question of the “production of the author” by revisiting the history of the book and of early print culture, and look at the manner in which the idea of the author emerges.</p>
<p>There is often an unstated assumption about the book as authored by a single person and authorship is spoken of in a value-neutral and ahistorical manner. It would be useful to situate the condition of authorship within a historical moment, where authorship is not seen to be an apriori condition but a constructed one, and one whose history is located in specific technological changes. The technology of print and paper brought about a set of questions around the question of authorship, and in the same way, the domain of Internet video sharing and collaborative authorship raises a set of questions and concerns.</p>
<h3>The construction of author/ity</h3>
<p>In many ways, the debate on authorship and knowledge is similar to the older debate in philosophy between body and self. Critics of self, such as Foucault, demonstrate that the notion of the self has often stemmed from very particular experiences in the Christian West, which were then posited as universal experiences. However, doing away with the notion of the self does not do away with the question of the body. In fact, Foucault goes on to explore the technologies of the self and how it informs our understanding of the body. In a similar vein, while the proponents of the Web 2.0 revolution (sometimes unknown to themselves, echoing debates that happened in print about a 100 years ago) announce either the death of the author or the availability of open licensing, fail to recognize that the question of authorship (and hence authority) are rooted both in particular practices as well as in technological forms. Hence the debates take familiar shapes: author versus pirate, digital versus celluloid, collaborative versus single author, etc.</p>
<p>It is especially when posing the question of authorship in absolute terms that the cultural producers/consumers on YouTube get reduced to pranksters, jesters or clowns. The debate also excludes the temporal framework of the debate and forget that the Internet is still a work in progress. Even though an Internet year is akin to seven pre-digital years, and time is now experienced in accelerated modes, it is necessary to realize that the domain of collaborative online sharing and production of videos is a relatively new one.</p>
<p>It may be more useful to think of the post-celluloid world as an extremely ambiguous and fluid period, undoubtedly marked by immense possibilities, but we have not reached any settled phase yet. So if we are to make comparisons, then it is more useful to compare the contemporary period with another moment in history, and the emergence of a cultural form other than cinema, which was marked by an equal fluidity. It is here that I go to the early history of print culture or ‘print in the making’<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a> and the conflicts over the question of authorship, to demonstrate that the condition of authorship question is an important one, but it is not a question that is unique to YouTube or the Internet. And an examination of the conditions under which authorship came to be established may help us get over our anxieties about authorship, and better understand it with certain lightness – through pranks, jests and clowning around.</p>
<h3>What’s in a name? – The author and the book</h3>
<p>For us to understand the idea of print in the making, we need to understand some of the practices that preceded the idea of print. They also enable us to understand the specific nature of the disputes around the question of authorship, and more importantly rethink disputes over authorship as productive disputes. Lawrence Liang in his ‘A brief history of the Internet in 13th and 14th Century’ takes up the example of Chaucer, the father of English poetry. He demonstrates, through different readings, “how the structure and the form of the Canterbury Tales reflects, interestingly, the question of approaches to the idea of authorship as well as the conditions of the production of the Canterbury Tales itself.” Liang looks at the manuscript cultures and the ways in which authorship and rights were understood.</p>
<p>Borrowing from Mark Rose, Liang shows how, in the Middle Ages, the owner of a manuscript was understood to possess the right to grant permission to copy it, and this was a right that could be exploited, as it was, for example, by those monasteries that regularly charged a fee for permission to copy one of their books. This was somewhat similar to copyright royalty with the crucial difference that the book-owner’s property was not a right in the text as such but in the manuscript as a physical object made of ink and parchment. The value provided by the monastery and the reason for their charging for their copy fee did not emerge just from the existence of the copy alone, but also from the fact that each monastery also had their unique elements in the form of the annotations, the commentary, corrections, which only the particular monastery’s copy might contain. The very act of copying and possession made you the author of that text and also the owner of the book.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> The author was not only the reclusive solitary figure that coins the first word but the various scribes, writers, annotators and litterateurs who offered changes, as well as helped in distribution and copying.<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a></p>
<p>So, while the popular account of preprint cultures is of slavish copying by scribes, the story turns out to be slightly more complicated. Acting as annotators, compilers, and correctors, medieval book owners and scribes actively shaped the texts they read. For example, they might choose to leave out some of the Canterbury Tales, or contribute one of their own. They might correct Chaucer’s versification every now and then. They might produce whole new drafts of Chaucer by combining one or more of his published versions with others. And these were all legitimate, acceptable and engaged forms of authorship. While this activity of average or amateur readers differs in scale and quality from Chaucer’s work, it opens us to new questions of the relationship between author, text, and reader in the Middle Ages, and also what it may mean to understand contemporary practices of knowledge and cultural creation.</p>
<p>Scribes and readers responded to Chaucer, Langland, and others, not by slavishly copying, canonizing, or passively receiving their texts, but by reworking them as creative readers. In doing so, they continue and contribute to the great layers of intertextual conversation that made the work of these now canonical authors relevant, interesting, and, fundamentally, possible. Similar debates surround the attribution of authorship to William Shakespeare for his work. Literary historians have periodically made claims that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the then court poet Ben Jonson, that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Christopher Marlowe, who is considered to be his arch enemy, that Shakespeare’s plays were written by another man named Shakespeare, and not the Shakespeare we think we know. At the basis of these arguments was the idea that the plays were designed not to be written but be performed and that in the lively rendering of the play, between different actors and producers, the original text changed. Interestingly, the Shakespearean technique of ‘asides’ and ‘taking the audience into confidence’ was actually a way of inviting the audience to not only receive the story but to read it differently, and edit it with their response to it.</p>
<p>This invitation was accepted by late Elizabethans who took great pleasure in seeing the same play multiple times to see how it has changed in the performance. Moreover, as multiple copies of the same manuscript started appearing in the living public, along with the actors and the producers, the readers also took great pleasure in creating copies of the takes that drastically cut, expand, edit and otherwise Shakespeare’s plays.<a href="#fn6" name="fr1">[6]</a></p>
<p>This activity goes beyond the mechanics of audience reception and looks at the plays as a collaborative effort which gets glossed over in the making of the authoritative folios which looked upon all such interventions as anomalies to the text. Before the fixity of text, there was a possibility to think of the text not as a finished product but a work in progress that elicits new responses, meanings and forms through its engagement with the audience. Moreover, the audience, in their rights of consumption, also seemed to possess the right to edit, change and circulate the text. They were the original jesters, pranksters and clowns, who, in their playful response to the text, constructed it to respond to their contexts and traditions. This sounds a lot like the debates we are experiencing on YouTube videos where the readers respond in kind to the poetics of reading and composing within which the YouTube videos operate.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Thus rather than speaking about authorship as something that is intrinsic to either a particular mode of authorship or intrinsic to any technological form, it might be more useful instead to consider the variety of knowledge apparatuses which come into play to establish its authority. In the case for the history of the book, it was clear that the establishment of authorship depended on the arrangements, classifications and kinds of assemblage that make it possible, maintain it as well as critique it. The conventions, for instance, by which the title and author of a work are identified play very specific functions in preparing for knowledge, as do the several kinds of documentation, attribution, citation and copyright.</p>
<p>The preconditions for authorship cannot easily be made into the object that we identify as author. It is a matter of making evident (making known) the structures of authorship which emerge in ways that provide definitive proof of the imperfectability and ambiguity of the authorial position. To speak of the productive nature of conflicts over authorship is then to recognize that any author – either exalted or dismissed - is constructed in a condition of potential collaboration and revision. The question thus centres on how we use the notion of authorship, how we bring it to light and mobilize it today to understand cultural forms differently. The way the authorship debates take place, there is almost a theological devotion to an exalted idea of author, without a consideration of the apparatus that was established to construct that condition.</p>
<p>The point is not to do away with the question of the author or construct another catch-all retainer that accepts all forms of engagement as authorship, but to recognize it not as something that is intrinsic or a given but something that is always transient, and to locate it, in the case of digital cinema, within specific practices and technologies. To return to the question of YouTube videos and the future of celluloid image; we are now faced with new questions about authorship and the very form that the digital cinema embodies: If the image itself is no longer made to bear the burden of meaning and intention, can we locate new forms of authorship – sometimes in incidental intertextuality, sometimes in creating conditions (as is in the case of DVDs or digital video sharing sites) narratives, meanings, interpretations and paraphernalia that simultaneously re-emphasize the sacredness of the image while deconstructing the apparatus that establishes a fixity of authorship over that image? Can we look at not only novel forms of interaction and consumption of the celluloid image but at a playful engagement with the image to create a galaxy of responses – sometimes as reciprocal videos, often through comments, embedding mechanisms, using the video not as an object unto itself but as a form of complex referencing and citation to a larger community of artists and authors?</p>
<p>The future of celluloid, especially if we are locating it in the realm of the Digital Moving Objects of Web 2.0 technologies, is going to have debates which were relevant also to the making of the book. However, this is not to say that the challenges faced and the problematic that emerge are redundant. Indeed, the celluloid frame and its overpowering capacity to incorporate technology, content, response and remixes, to produce the spectacle of watching, posit certain challenges to the Web 2.0 celebrations while simultaneously expanding its own scope of production. YouTube debates around infantile abuse of video/cinema technologies to make dancing babies and furry animals popular need to be read as symptomatic of a much larger question of authorship, authority and the conditions of cultural production rather than signalling the death of celluloid. An escape from the authority question also allows for an escape from the celluloid-digital binary and posits a more fruitful engagement in looking at how celluloid technologies (and the constellation of factors therewith) inform our understanding and analysis of the DMIs that are slowly gaining popularity.</p>
<p>This research was originally published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.jmionline.org/jmi8_4.htm">Journal of Moving Images</a>.</p>
<p>See the research paper in <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.academia.edu/NishantShah/Papers">Academia.edu</a>.</p>
<hr />
</div>
<h3>References</h3>
<div>
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].Holden Lenz’s YouTube debut, that probably made him the most popular baby on the Internet is still available for viewing at <<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/internet-governance/Holden%20Lenz%E2%80%99s%20YouTube%20debut,%20that%20probably%20made%20him%20the%20most%20popular%20baby%20on%20the%20Internet%20is%20still%20available%20for%20viewing%20at%20%3Chttp:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ%3E%20retrieved%2012:14%20a.m.%2022nd%20January%202010." class="external-link">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ</a>> retrieved 12:14 a.m. 22nd January 2010.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>].The essay is available for open access at <<a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html</a>></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>].I am grateful to Lawrence Liang for this methodological framework where he looks at the emergence of Wikipedia and the pre-print cultures, to look at the similarities and differences between the two. “A Brief History of the Internet in the 13th and 14th Century”. Forthcoming 2010.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>].See Alberto Manguel’s A History of Reading. 1990. New York: Penguin Books.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>].Daniel Wolf, in Reading History in Early Modern England. 2005. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, explains in great detail how the reader as well as the author were imagined, constructed and recognized in the early days of print.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>].See Molly Abel Travis’s comprehensive account of the debates in Construction of Readers in the Twentieth Century. 1998. Illinois, Chicago: Southern Illinois University Press.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters</a>
</p>
No publishernishantIntellectual Property RightsCopyright2012-12-14T10:24:05ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment Bill in Parliament
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament
<b>The Copyright Amendment Bill is expected to be presented in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Human Resource and Development, Kapil Sibal today afternoon. The much awaited Bill (since it has been in the offing since 2006) has undergone significant changes since its initial appearance.</b>
<p>Given below is a very quick first cut highlight of the Bill from a public interest perspective. A more detailed analysis will follow after the session discussions. </p>
<ul><li>Parallel imports: The parallel imports clause which had been put in as sec 2(m) has now been dropped from the present draft. This is a big setback because educational institutions, libraries and archives, second hand book, etc., were looking to this provision to bring down the prices and hasten the availability of books. This also affects persons with disabilities since they will be unable to import books in accessible formats.</li><li>Persons with disabilities: There are two provisions relating to persons with disabilities which have been introduced. Section 52 (1) (zb) relates to the conversion, reproduction, issues of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, provided that these activities are meant to enable access to persons with disabilities and sufficient safeguards are taken to ensure that these materials do not enter the mainstream market. This section in a sense is broader and more encompassing than some provisions found in other countries, which relate exclusively to the blind or visually impaired. This section would adequately cover persons with other disabilities who cannot read print. A new section 31B also provides for compulsory licensing for profit entities wishing to convert and distribute works in accessible formats, provided that they are primarily working for persons with disabilities and are registered under sec 12A of the Income Tax Act or under chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.</li><li>Many exceptions under 52 (1) (i) relating to fair dealing have been extended to all works except computer programmes. New sections 52 (1) (b) and (c) protect transient and incidental storage from being classified as infringing copies, which offers protection to entities such as online intermediaries. </li><li>The scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’. Three new sections 31 B, 31C and 31 D have been introduced. Section 31 B has already been described in the paragraph on persons with disabilities. Section 31 C lays down strict measures relating to statutory licensing in case of cover version, being a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work. Section 31 D relates to statutory licenses for broadcasting organizations wishing to broadcast a literary or musical work or sound recording.</li><li>Non commercial public libraries can now store electronic copies of any non digital works they own (52(n)).</li><li>The new Bill introduces Technological protection measures (65A and 65B) and makes circumvention and distribution of works in which rights managements systems have been removed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto two years as well as fine. In addition the copyright owner can also avail of civil remedies. As such India is not really required to have these provisions in the copyright legislation since we are not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and such provisions will hamper consumer interests. </li><li>Terms of copyright have been increased significantly without reason, thus preventing works from falling into the public domain. For instance, the term of photographs has been increased from 60 years to life of the photographer plus 60 years. This is far in excess of the minimum term stipulated by international treaties. </li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-30T09:26:44ZBlog Entry