The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Global Civil Society Coalition launches website to promote Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge
<b></b>
<p>CIS is a part of a global civil society coalition that is working to promote access to, and use of, knowledge - the Access to Knowledge or A2K coalition. <br /><br />Earlier this week, the coalition launched a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/">website</a> articulating its mission and recommendations to reform copyright systems for the benefit of education, research, and cultural heritage. <br /><br />Copyright systems pose serious obstacles to quality teaching and learning, researchers’ ability to receive and impart information and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and preservation and access of cultural and scientific heritage. The website presents evidence and legal solutions, with a focus on the digital and online dimension to the issues. Three global maps also show the (limited) extent to which copyright limitations and exceptions across the world support online education, text and data mining, and preservation, highlighting the need for global legal eform. <br /><br />The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/about/">members of the A2K coalition</a> represent a diverse set of voices such as educators, researchers, students, libraries, archives, museums, other knowledge users and creative communities around the globe. In Asia-pacific, we have ourselves and Open Access India as members presently. <strong>We invite organizations who share a similar vision of a fair and balanced copyright system to join the coalition.</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledgemovements2022-10-12T12:05:03ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Rights of broadcasters<br /></b>Iran wanted clarifications about whether the rights granted to broadcasters under the treaty would be a negative right (right to prohibit) or a positive right (right to authorise). Iran also highlighted that there was a need to clarify definitions in the treaty, particularly with respect to user generated contents shared on websites such as Youtube, in comparison with traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the treaty provides two sets of rights, positive rights under Article 6 and 7 and negative rights under Article 8 and 9. The Chair also clarified that the treaty aimed to bridge the various legal frameworks, based on copyright, under a rights based approach and a signal based approach. In the signal based approach, the positive right under Article 6 is based to protect only live signal and the protection ends at the point of fixation, hence there is no relation between the right of fixation Article 7 and the right to prohibit transmission and deferred transmission under article 8. The Chair further clarified that the positive right ends at fixation after which the right to prohibit comes into play. With respect to User Generated Content the Chair clarified that the current draft of the treaty focused protection to traditional broadcasters and not other service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of the Right </b>The USA highlighted their concern over the possible perpetual term of fixation rights and requested that a revised text could have some explicit time limit. Singapore echoed USA’s concern over the absence of limitations on the duration of the rights of the broadcasters which could give broadcasters perpetual protection of a programme. Similarly Pakistan questioned the need for a right of fixation highlighting that piracy was an enforcement issue. With respect to the term of protection the Chair clarified that the treaty sought to provide practical protection to broadcasters of their live signal, and not the content of the broadcast. Further clarifying that one of the main aims of the treaty was the protection of simultaneous retransmission, and to provide protection in case there was a fixation of the signals. <b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Limitations and Exceptions<br /></b>Iran and Brazil highlighted issues about limitations and exceptions. While Iran stated that the inclusion of the three step test in the treaty would water down the limitations and exceptions provisions, Brazil highlighted that the Article 11 of the treaty did not follow the text of the Marakesh convention or the Beijing treaty regarding Limitations and Exceptions. Brazil highlighted that there was a need to clarify in the text of the treaty itself that the list provided under the Article is illustrative and not exhaustive. In addition to this they stated that the text of the treaty should also establish the presumption that all the examples listed have already fulfilled the three steps. Brazil also highlighted the question about the consequence of the proposal on works in the public domain that are not sufficiently clear. The draft should ensure that public domain content when broadcasted should not receive another layer of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Communia, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Innovarte also highlighted issues that might come up with broadcasting works that are in the public domain. Communia provided examples where the broadcasters might have the only good copy of historic events and reporting that have now become a part of the public domain, however the broadcasters could reappropriate these which are in the public domain with new exclusive rights through this treaty. Communia hence suggested a need for exclusion of public domain works in the treaty. Innovarte highlighted Article 6 of the Berne convention which allows for exceptions related to public interest such as use of excerpts.</p>
<h3><b>Agenda Item 6 and 7 - Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, for Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other disabilities </b></h3>
<p><b> </b></p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br />The beginning of the discussion on Limitations and Exceptions began with the CEBS Group, Group B, the European Union and the USA emphasising on the need to look at other avenues to implement L and E without going for a legally binding international instrument. Some of the solutions provided included strengthening existing national legislations, existing solutions within the framework of the existing international treaties, exchange of best practices, and capacity building for countries to implement L&E’s in their national legislations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ghana on behalf of the African Group stated that there was a need to provide mutual benefit between those who generate and those who use creative works. Ghana also highlighted the issues with cross border access and sharing of copyrighted materials which is becoming increasingly difficult for libraries, archives, museums and research institutions to access. Ghana highlighted the need for a strong support in development of a legal instrument on Limitations and Exceptions, for libraries, archives, museums and for persons with disabilities other than blindness. South Africa in their statement also highlighted the benefit L&E’s would provide to both creators and users, and the cross border transfer of data. And extended their support to the statement of Ghana and work towards an international instrument whether model law, joint recommendation or a treaty.<b> </b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T12:22:24ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 3
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3
<b></b>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br /> Iran, Pakistan and Kenya highlighted their support toward the African proposal as well emphasized the need for an internationally binding treaty on L&E. Saudi Arabia mentioned the need for Limitations and Exceptions to benefit the preservation and sharing of cultural heritage, as well as for persons with disabilities. Iran emphasied on the need for adequate balance and copyright protection and a balance between different national legislations. Iran stated that there was a need to have an international legal instrument in order to harmonise national legislations, in the absence of which there would not be a free flow of information. Iran also emphasised on the need to look at the priorities of developing countries with respect to the Development Agenda. Pakistan also highlighted the issues that came to light during the pandemic, especially with regard to cross border use of information by educational institutions. In addition to this Pakistan stated that it looked forward to a binding instrument that was not too prescriptive. Kenya shed light on the concerns around the increasing knowledge gap between the developed and the developing countries, and the migration from analogue to digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 4 <br /> <br /> Limitations and Exceptions and Cross Border Flow of Data <br /> </b>Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Uganda and Algeria extended their support to the Work Programme on L&E by the African Group. Nigeria in their statement expressed how L&E were essential for research, cultural exchange, and how it had the potential to help people around the world who still lack access to educational and research materials. Nigeria also highlighted that a legally binding international treaty would help harmonise and balance the copyright system with other instruments such as the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO internet treaties, and facilitate smooth transborder trade in both online and traditional media. Iran stated that the creation of L&E for online and crossborder use of data is imperative, especially for the benefit of online teaching and research as well as bridge the digital divide by facilitating access to knowledge and technology. <br /> <br /> The European Union (EU) and France however were not in support of a legally binding instrument.The EU stated that they would prefer a non-binding instrument such as a toolkit, while France stated that the current international framework of copyright is sufficiently flexible to allow members to implement L&E in their national legislations, as well as to find appropriate tools to meet the needs of education, research and preservation. France expressed their reservation in moving towards a normative framework and stated that the states could look at the exchange of best practice at national level and support in drafting national legislations. The United States stated that topics such as text and data mining and contract override were not issues that were fully discussed yet at the committee level.</p>
<p><b>Observations by the Chair </b></p>
<ol>
<li>The Chair noted that there continued to be a disagreement on whether to pursue international instruments for Limitations and Exceptions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair also noted that while there was a lot of support for the proposal, there still was no consensus on the proposal. The Chair suggested that the African Group work with the member states that highlighted their reservations and work together with the Chair to see if the proposal could be revised, or to look at portions of the proposal that enjoyed the support to be advanced.</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T13:03:42ZBlog EntryStanding Committee's recommendations are at odds with Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge
<b>The Indian Parliamentary Committee's report weighs on several aspects of the Indian IPR system and issues of protection and enforcement. This blog post summarily notes the observations and recommendations of the Committee on the Copyright Act, 1957 which stand to impact access to knowledge. The primary issue dealt with was the claim that copyright exceptions were affecting the publishing industry and authors. The recommendations include narrowing of copyright exceptions, barring digital storage and copying, promotion of libraries, and adopting the Berne Convention as the benchmark on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>Last week, the Rajya Sabha <strong>Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce</strong> (Committee) tabled its <a class="external-link" href="https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/13/141/161_2021_7_15.pdf">review of the IPR regime in India</a>. The Committee had initiated work in October, 2020, and during the process consulted with law firms, industry associations, and government departments.</p>
<p>The Committee agreed with the contention of the stakeholders that limitations
and exceptions contained in section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 were
having a detrimental impact on the publishing industry and authors. In addition, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) also presented its “corrective measures” to narrow down section 52(1)(i) of the
Copyright Act – the copyright exception that had been the bone of contention in
the <a class="external-link" href="https://eifl.net/blogs/course-packs-education-ruled-legal-india">DU photocopying case</a>. They included 1) permitting only the making of print
copies of literary works which are available in libraries at government-owned
educational institutions, to “avoid any commercial gains from the work of
publishers”; 2) quantitatively restricting the reproduction (in cases of books)
to ten percent of the total number of pages of the book; and alarmingly also 3)
barring the storage of material in the form of scanned or digital formats.</p>
<div>
The Committee further expressed its concerns about the conflict between
copyright holders and educational institutions caused by section 52(1)
of the Act. Section 52(1) is the provision that contains limitations and exceptions. The Committee suggested that the protection of books and works be
balanced against public accessibility of works at an affordable rate. In its
recommendation, it directed the DPIIT to amend section 52(1) to ‘facilitate’ a
fair and equitable ecosystem of literary culture. The measures suggested are: <br /><br /></div>
<ul><li>Permitting the copying of works only in government-owned educational institutions and storing it in libraries
for easy access to students; </li><li>
Imposing
limitations on unrestricted copying of books and literary works and storage of copied
works in digital formats;</li><li>
Promotion of
establishing of community libraries and upgrading existing libraries in the country
for easy access to works of foreign publishers which are exorbitantly priced
and difficult to access;</li><li>National
Mission on Library, a venture of Central Government to strengthen the library
system, should be implemented at the earliest;</li><li>
DPIIT
to undertake a study of the Berne Convention to inform the copyright regime,
and the Berne Convention should be referred to in matters of limitations and
exceptions in the country.</li></ul>
<div> </div>
<p>Separately,
the report also makes certain recommendations in respect of registration of
copyright societies and treating internet/ digital streaming platforms as broadcasters
for purposes of section 31D license.</p>
<p>The recommendations to narrow copyright exceptions and limit digital uses of works are very concerning. It appears that the recommendations shift the financial burden of
ensuring access to educational material on public libraries, yet at the same
time, restrict the permissible uses of works in libraries.</p>
<p>Since
2020, both government and Parliament have conducted separate consultations on
the IPR regime without hearing all stakeholders. In the case of the consultation
exercise initiated by DPIIT, details still have not been made public. In the
Parliament’s case, it is concerning that key stakeholders and beneficiaries on education and research such as institutions, libraries, teachers, researchers etc. have not been consulted. Neither the substantive part nor the minutes discuss any research or evidence on the issues. As <a class="external-link" href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/a-parliamentary-standing-committee-report-that-challenges-the-fine-balances-within-the-ip-system">noted </a>by
Prof. Scaria, this is hardly a balanced exercise and the report is nowhere
close to the level of rigor and depth expected from a Parliamentary Standing
Committee.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLibrariesParliamentLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-07-28T09:31:53ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Observers made the following statements on discussion around limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.communia-association.org/">Communia: <br /></a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity
to address for the limitations and exceptions for educational purposes. I would
like to give a brief statement that by saying Professor Seng's studies,
national countries had exceptions narrowly in various ways the copyright works
of educational activities. These narrow exceptions prevent certain educational
practices such as the quotation of entire image in a school presentation. When
it comes to modern educational practices, namely those that occur in digital
and online teaching environments, the legal standing is even more problematic.
Indeed, certain acts which teachers are allowed to perform in face-to-face
teaching may not be permitted in digital and online contexts. For instance, in
the Netherlands, the law is clear that a teacher can show a movie from a DVD in
class, but if the same teacher wants to show a video from a free publicly
accessible website, it seems that you'll need to be -- you will not be able to
do it. This is due either to inappropriate legislative techniques or to
domestic policy decisions. In any case, what is certain is cross-border
educational uses are compromised at the outset due to the current national
copyright laws, including within regions that enjoy a high level of
harmonization, such as the European Union. Therefore, continue to discuss this
issue in the forum which we will lead toward from an internationally binding
instrument as mandated by the General Assembly 2017 seems essential. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/">International Federation of Journalists:</a></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon. We've already introduced
ourselves. All these works are and remain one of the key raw materials for
education. The international federation of journalists deeply regrets the
educational and research institutions underfunded. No one is proposing,
however, as far as I'm aware, that schools and colleges should get free
electricity or free phone calls. Here, most clearly of all, the solution is
collective licensing through collective management organizations that are
democratically controlled by the rights holders they represent. There is a
wealth of misunderstanding of the issues. I take as one example the very first
statement on a pro education site and the magic of Internet indexing may enable
you to identify it, are which demonstrates how ill thought out the costs of
education can be, not withstanding the previous. This is addressed to the
European Union. It says, quotes, we want you to have the freedom to teach
without breaking the law. Good. Quotes, before teaching her students about how
representations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet have changed through the
ages, a teacher may have to ask permission from the rights holders of every
movie she wants to screen in class, unquote. It says, this is -- we want to
relieve educators from this impossible task, but I'm aware of nowhere in the
European Union and few countries in the -- what we're pleased to call the more
advanced economies where this is an impossible task. The school just pays for a
license from a collecting society and goes ahead with no further
administration. In my home country, United Kingdom, the collecting societies
are working successfully on streamlining the system of licensing and making it
more efficient in time and cash. Personally, I do recognize that some
categories of textbooks are overpriced...(Speaker went over time and was asked to stop).</p>
<p><strong>International Authors Federation:</strong></p>
<p>Thank you very much. As this is the first
time the International Office Forum has taken the floor this session, we'd like
to congratulate you, Chair, and your vice chairs on your election and thank the
Secretariat on their work. The international authors forum represents authors
from the text, screenwriting, and visual arts sectors and their interests in
copyright, as members of 60 organizations representing well over 600,000
authors worldwide. In ran increasingly homogenized world, cultural diversity is
important, authors maintain that in digital arts, literatures, language, and
music. It is the authors works being considered in the proposals being discussed
at WIPO. There are individual authors whose rights are involved in all
countries. Those rights must be given primary consideration. They need fair
remuneration if they are to continue the work everybody wants access to.
Without payment, they will not be able to continue to create. The diversity and
quality of content will suffer and the quantity of works produce produced will
be limited. We believe that there are already international copyright
provisions in place that work well to enable the development of licensing
frameworks, which enable access, including cross-border access provision
through educational institutions and ensure fair payment. Authors believe that
these existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility for countries
represented at WIPO to continue to work towards national solutions, such as
licensing frameworks, which can be developed according to local needs. Thank
you for your time.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Corporacion Innovarte:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair. The study of
exceptions for educational limitations in current legislation shows that there
is a fragmentation, that it's not appropriate to the countries, and very often
this is an insolvable problem for international and learning cooperation in the
area of communication. In order to overcome these, we think it's ins dispensable
to have an international agreement which will enable us to have a minimum of
common exceptions and limitations which will make it possible to have
compatible roles for cross-border use of educational resources. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pijip.org/">Programme on Information Justice and IP:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. You and I are from countries that have educational exceptions that
are open to the use of any work, for any education related activity or
purpose, and by any user — subject to a fairness test that takes into
account the rights of authors and rights holders. This openness in the exceptions environment enables innovations that
promote access to learning materials, including through new technologies
and over the internet. Tomorrow at a side meeting over lunch, Communia and American
University will be presenting the outcomes of different research
projects that examine the operation of user rights in practice. That
research shows that wealthy countries are developing openness in these
factors much more quickly and thoroughly than poorer countries
currently. But the research also shows that this is not a developing
country problem alone. Many wealthy countries as well lack exceptions
that allow such basic practices as showing a movie, streaming a video or
performing a play in a classroom setting. These problems are compounded
when we deliver educational products across borders through distance
learning. A lack of harmonization on these issues will produce a race to the
bottom where teachers like myself are forced to not deliver the best
materials possible for our students because of the lack of rights to do
so in some countries.I would encourage the process going forward to focus on the value of educational exceptions that<br />
cover all:</p>
<ul><li>Works,</li><li>Apply to all users, and that</li><li>Extend to a full range of activities</li></ul>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-05-30T05:51:42ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 4, May 31. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>We have concerns about the plan’s focus on MOOCs and distance
learning initiatives. Although they are related to increasing access to education,
these initiatives are hardly a substitute for classroom learning – and the
primary objective of the treaty should be to improve such classroom teaching,
especially for developing countries where ICT penetration remains quite low.
Unless the plan also chooses to develop Open Educational Resources as a
priority in connection with MOOCs and distance learning initiatives, we suggest
that this item in the plan be re-examined in light of other more beneficial
action items.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:46:45ZBlog Entry2015 USTR Report: Old Wine in New Bottle
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle
<b>Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) undertakes an elaborate exercise to castigate countries' domestic intellectual property (IP) law and policy. The criticisms and recommendations are presented in a document called the Special 301 Report. This year's edition puts India on the Priority Watch List for the twenty-sixth time in a row. Below, I rebut the report's prejudicial claims and demands, and argue that the report puts free speech, innovation and public interest in jeopardy. </b>
<p> </p>
<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">Keeping
in tradition </a>, the
2015 report yet again exposes US' hypocrisy by faithfully serving Hollywood and Big Pharma. In the past, countries
such as Israel and Canada have
publicly rejected the USTR's findings and derided the US for
unwarranted interference with domestic law and policy. Last year,
India too had refused to cooperate with a USTR initiated unilateral
investigation (Out of Cycle review) of its IP regime because the
investigation violated international law.
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a hard-hitting response
to the report. It draws <a href="https://www.eff.org/special-404">case
studies of countries</a>
where overbroad IP law has affected public interest, free speech and
innovation. For instance, it mentions how Colombia's 'reformed'
copyright law has become a travesty. Colombia introduced extreme
enforcement and harsh criminal sanctions for unauthorised sharing of
works at the behest of the US. Last year, news surfaced that a
Colombian biodiversity researcher faced upto eight years in prison
for sharing an academic article on Scribd. Any balanced IP regime
(including India) permits such use of copyrighted works under the
fair use principle, however, Colombia's narrow fair use provision has
led to a situation where citizens now face prison for ordinary use of
academic works.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p>This
year the Special 301 Report in its section on India approves the
Prime Minister's statements to align IP law with international
standards, which is a cause for concern. Firstly, what are these
“international standards” that both US and India refer to
exactly? The most comprehensive international agreement on IP that
binds 160 member nations is the WTO Agreement on Trade related
aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement). Ergo, this
agreement would qualify as the most accepted “international
standard”, which India already complies with. Secondly, the TRIPS
Agreement sets down certain <em>global</em>
<em>minimum</em>
standards for protecting and enforcing IP, simultaneously providing
countries a certain degree of flexibility. However, the US has
consistently pushed India to enact tougher provisions known as TRIPS
Plus provisions. This is reflected in the report as well. Legally
speaking, under international law India is not obligated to accede to
such demands, and it should not if it wants a balanced IP regime to
protect and serve the interests both of rights holders and its
citizens.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report shamelessly aligns its concerns with the financial interests
of foreign rights holders and American companies. It erroneously
projects IP as a tool to only maximise revenues, agnostic to public
interest. While
IP rights are temporary monopolies, they also are a tool to ensure
innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further
access to knowledge. It
is well established that flexible IP laws <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">enable
access to knowledge and promote innovation</a>.
Such a flexible regime is critical to developing countries like
India. The USTR
conveniently forgets that lax
IP law and enforcement for a large part of the 19th century helped
the US to accelerate into an economic powerhouse and a front-runner
in innovation. It also
brazenly threatens to impose unilateral sanctions against a country
designated as a Priority Foreign Country on the list. This treatment
is usually reserved for the worst offender on the list. Such
unilateral threats and sanctions are again a direct violation of
international law.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Unsurprisingly,
the report is critical of India's under-enforcement of copyright laws
and the impact of patent law on pharmaceuticals. It demands a
specific legislation to counter camcording and video piracy. The
prospective legislation is unnecessary because all movie theatres in
India prohibit camcorders and the prevailing Copyright Act, 1957
contains penalties to punish offenders. Instead of creating new
offences, we should re-evaluate the need of existing offences. <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">For
instance, copyright infringement on non-commercial scales should not
be a criminal offence at all</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">.</a>
Instead, the law should provide convenient and affordable access to
such works to counter petty infringement.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">India
is home to the world's largest apothecary. The Indian pharmaceutical
and medical device industry provides affordable healthcare to the
citizens, and also exports drugs to countries in need. In fact, the
compulsory licensing mechanism has ensured affordable access to life
saving liver and kidney drugs in India. The report comments on the
undesirability of section 3(d) and the compulsory licensing mechanism
in Indian patent law. With respect to section 3(d), the US wishes
India to to change its patent law to enable large pharma companies to
patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better. This
alarmist outlook smacks of hypocrisy because the US, in fact, has a
higher rate of patent invalidation and compulsory license grants! It
also demands data exclusivity – which would extend proprietary
rights to patentees over government mandated drug data, and would be
detrimental to the local pharma industry. Further, the report states
that the Indian system is biased against enforcement of foreign
patent rights holders - which is mere speculation. T<a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/04/modi-shames-india-calls-patent-laws-under-developed.html">here
is no evidence to draw such a conclusion.</a>
The claims relating to localisation trends in pharma are half- baked
and speculative again.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report observes that at the UNFCCC negotiations, India recognised
patents as an obstacle to dissemination of climate change
technologies. It wishes India understood the critical role of patent
protection and competitiveness to ensure innovation, which is a
flawed co-relation. While strong IP rights may protect inventors
against infringement and provide return on investment, however,
<a href="https://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/wgpark/upload/Intellectual-Property-Rights.pdf">stronger
IP rights also raise the cost of innovation by raising the price of
technological inputs into innovation and lower the frequency of
innovation.</a></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">As
far as the issue of counterfeit medicines is concerned, a better
remedy lies in health safety laws and consumer laws, than the
trademark law. The report also approves of state legislatures'
version of the Goondas Act. These Acts <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">provide
for detainment of criminals and lumpen elements in society,</a>
and with recent amendments have expanded to include video pirates and
digital offenders. Karnataka's Goonda Act <a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">enabling
preventive detention violates </a><a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">constitutional rights</a>.
While the Sixth Amendment to the United States Bill of rights
protects offenders against preventive detention, the US has no qualms
about approving such unconstitutional procedures in India.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
arguments above underscore the irrelevance of the report. The Prime
Minister may have made appeasing statements to the USA, however, in a
welcome development Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sithraman
in response to the report stated <em>“I</em><em>ndia
is fully aligned with international intellectual property rights
standards and "there is no need for anyone to question us."”
</em>Our
IP
regime with its inherent flexibilities should be preserved and not
sacrificed at the altar of US' business interests. Using
compulsory licensing across sectors would indeed accelerate
technology transfer and diminish initial capex for manufacturers, a
move promoted by the National Manufacturing Policy. The ambitious
Make in India and Digital India campaigns are set to suffer if India
incorporates TRIPS plus standards into its IP regime. The <a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">government
supports opennes</a><a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">s</a>
and has implemented policies mandating use of open standards and open
source software as a part of the Digital India campaign. India should
not let foreign hands dictate its IPR Policy, and proceed to develop
a policy
which is informed by broader principles of fairness and equity,
balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and
exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and
access to medicines.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsHomepageLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2015-06-16T10:24:49ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities
<b>At the 29th session of WIPO's SCCR, the Chair, Martin Moscoso, requested NGOs to send in their statements on limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research institutions and persons with disabilities in writing, to be placed on the record. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent in this written statement.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As we have always maintained in the past sessions of this Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society strongly believes that everyone, regardless of borders and barriers, either physical, or those created by time, distance and costs should have access to knowledge and education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To that end, we strongly support the proposal made by India, earlier, on continuing constructive work in this area. We also welcome the suggestion by the Indian delegation on a synthesis of these issues (facilitated by an expert, through the Chair), so that we can have a constructive discussion on these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we are very mindful of the fact that there exists a very real, very demonstrable need for limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions and also for the benefit of persons with disabilities. There is also an equally crucial need to ensure that these limitations and exceptions are open ended and are appropriate for the digital environment; a conversation we believe that is imperative for Member Nations to take forward, definitely more so than one around granting a 'para-copyright' for organizations that already enjoy a great deal of protection under existing treaties, and are far less vulnerable than beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We thank the United States of America for their document- SCCR/27/8 on the Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. We appreciate the recognition of the copyright system in the dissemination of works of authorship as well as the critical role that it plays in the promotion of educational, teaching and research objectives. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of a balance of rights and exceptions and limitations sustaining the role and activities of educational, teaching and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, we do believe that for a true balance to be achieved between rights and limitations and exceptions, the rights of the users of copyrighted works for the purposes of access to knowledge will have to be treated on par with those of the rights holders themselves. We believe that for this to be possible, measures will have to be taken to ensure international interoperability of limitations and exceptions and international standards suitable to address emerging and present issues of the digital environment will have to be developed. As we have submitted before this Committee earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. Mr. Chair, we reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area, that will facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a first step towards this end, we urge Member States to collaborate on and engage in substantive discussions building on existing Working Documents presently before this Committee. We look forward to an engaging discussion and providing all our complete support as we move forward on this very important agenda item.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-20T13:40:19ZBlog Entry 35th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 15 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society, in agreement among
others, believes that an international binding instrument to govern exceptions
and limitations for libraries and archives is critical.</p>
<p>In several countries, their set of limitations and exceptions
do not serve all intended beneficiaries in a comparably equal manner. For
example, for the work of archives in India, there is very little that allows
such institutions to do in terms of making copies for preservation and
noncommercial dissemination. India, like many other countries here has a rich
cultural heritage – and doing any activities with old audiovisual material
involves identifying rightholders and clearing rights connected to orphan works and traditional
cultural expressions as well. Imagine the onerous task of an archive of
clearing all these rights in connection with appropriate agencies, and of
course clearing additional permissions from authors and performers. In our research, we discovered that most archives in India miserably fail on this front, causing valuable material
being locked in storage rooms for decades.</p>
<p>Needless to say, accessibility to this national wealth of knowledge
in archives also supports the mission of libraries, museums and educational
institutions and researchers.</p>
<p>So Mr. Chair, we strongly believe that an update to the
international copyright system via a binding instrument would serve many
countries well. It would empower all countries to fill in such deficiencies in
relation to libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, museums
and persons with disabilities.</p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOArchivesAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-15T13:35:02ZBlog Entry35th SCCR: CIS Statement on GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>We would like to reiterate the importance of GRULAC Proposal
for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit
organisation in India that undertakes research on internet and digital
technologies from an academic and policy perspective.</p>
<p>In an environment of monopolies controlling the distribution
of digital goods and services, which connect users and creators, such a
comprehensive study assumes significant importance, especially for creators in the
global south.</p>
<p>We are especially concerned with the methods by which platform
intermediaries are enforcing their private IP rules on creators worldwide,
and if there are fair systems in place to address takedown, and the subsequent restoration
of works unfairly taken down from their platforms. It must be noted that there
is a serious lack of transparency as far as the conduct of such intermediaries
go, and often actions are taken without appropriate justification/explanation.</p>
<p>It is equally important that we continue to build on limitations
and exceptions for libraries, museums, archives, educational institutions,
researchers, and users’ in the digital environment.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-17T10:03:21ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 1
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1) transparency in SCCR work 2) limitations and exceptions 3) addressing the object of protection and overbroad scope of rights in the draft treaty text. </b>
<ul><li>
<h2>Agenda Item: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations</h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-2d7fdecc-7fff-4eac-fbe0-71dde65e7c7e" dir="ltr">1. Opacity around informal work on the broadcasting treaty agenda</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa and Chile shared their disappointment on the lack of transparency of informal meetings on the treaty text, and urged for greater openness. The informal meetings were conducted between WIPO and an ad hoc group of countries known as ‘Friends of the (SCCR) Chair’. This group currently includes Argentina, Colombia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the United States of America. The group met in April and June 2021, but Indonesia questioned whether there was a mandate for it in the first place.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia and Pakistan requested for further updates on the status of the treaty text from the WIPO SCCR Chair and Vice-Chair, especially as an outcome of the informal work. The two delegations also noted the lack of diversity and imbalance in representation in the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group. Pakistan noted that this agenda item had always had a diversity of viewpoints, and that this new mechanism was reductive and not inclusive. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The WIPO SCCR Chair’s and Vice-Chair’s response was that the ‘Friends of the Chair’ mechanism was adopted to do inter-sessional work (work between two SCCRs), in a flexible and less-time consuming manner. The Chair added that the group was <a href="https://www.wipo.int/tad/en/activitydetails.jsp?id=19871">created</a> in 2019 (i.e in the previous Chair's term). However, it should be noted that the group was created only for an “exceptional informal intersessional meeting” with the objective to “brainstorm on possible ways to make progress on the draft treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations in view of the upcoming WIPO General Assembly and the 40th session of the SCCR which will be held in October.” Indonesia made a request to join this group, which was denied by the Chair. The Chair only assured that the concerns raised will be addressed.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">2. <span id="docs-internal-guid-645b82b3-7fff-f227-a130-9f6cbd693337">Support for adding better limitations and exceptions to the treaty text</span></h3>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-454df1d1-7fff-9cba-a70c-49e468c21149" dir="ltr">South Africa emphasised on the critical role of broadcasting organisations in transmitting information and knowledge, and cautioned that the treaty text should be balanced and not negatively impact access to information, culture and education. Iran (speaking on behalf of Asia-pacific group) highlighted the public interest stakes in the treaty and stated that the way forward was to ensure that no layer of rights is created which might affect the right to access information. Chile also was in favour of a more balanced approach that should include limitations and exceptions. Indonesia and Pakistan added that limitations and exceptions in the current text need to be addressed more properly, as they are essential provisions for digital preservation, online use and research.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">3. A<span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592">lternative legal solutions to address broadcast piracy </span></h3>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592"></span>Canada highlighted how in its national law it provides signal protection and combats piracy without granting exclusive rights to broadcasters on transmission.</p>
<ul><li>
<h2 dir="ltr">Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-307d14ca-7fff-cec0-6174-8c8b1db618ec" dir="ltr">1. Support for Limitations and Exceptions agenda item</h3>
<p dir="ltr">India noted the importance of the limitations and exceptions agenda for the benefit of the work of libraries, archives, museums, and educational and research institutions, and shared its support for the agenda item.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-06-29T13:40:49ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 1 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I'm speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.</p>
<p>In the Asia-Pacific region, where there exists a deep digital divide in many countries, radio and TV broadcasting was instrumental in meeting quality education requirements during the pandemic. It would be invaluable and forward-looking for an international broadcasting treaty to have adequate limitations and exceptions for another emergency scenario such as COVID019. I urge the Committee to deliberate more deeply on this aspect.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-06-29T13:19:47ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session, on the limitations and exceptions agenda item.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair. </p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India. </p>
<p>The pandemic has hit the world hard, and developing countries even harder. The committee should urgently lead the way on developing concrete solutions in the domain of limitations and exceptions that are timely and meaningful. Useful suggestions have already been offered by member states in the nature of tools that could enhance cross-border cooperation and international norm setting. This could take the form of guidelines, model laws, and the like. </p>
<p>Further, the regional consultations should have proper representation and give proper weightage to views of beneficiaries of this agenda item. WIPO should also plan to institute measures to enable proper participation, in view of the digital divide</p>
<p dir="ltr">It should further be borne in mind that there exists wide socio-economic disparity in the region, and there has traditionally been a strong reliance by students and researchers on knowledge generated in foreign countries. Thus a lack of international harmonisation of limitations and exceptions disproportionately affects developing countries. These limitations and exceptions need to urgently address cross-border uses, online uses, and digital preservation to create the maximum developmental impact.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-06-29T13:20:59ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the scope, direction, and progress of work on the limitations and exceptions agenda. This blog post summarises positions and contentions around: 1) Information Session on impact COVID 2) Creating a binding limitations and exceptions international instrument 3) Work Plan under the L&E agenda 4) Conducting regional consultations as per the report on regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>There was a strong consensus on the fact that COVID had adversely affected actors and beneficiaries involved with the copyright system, but there was less consensus on which stakeholders and beneficiaries to focus on as a priority, and which next steps and remedies should be considered. The gamut of stakeholders under the limitations and exceptions agenda item includes authors, publishers, creative cultural industries, educational and research institutions, persons with disabilities, libraries, museums, and archives, licensing societies, and users’ rights advocates.</p>
<h2>Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
<h3>1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID <br /></h3>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) proposed an information session on the copyright framework in the format of presentations from experts and relevant stakeholders as well as exchange of views among them at the next SCCR (SCCR42) to understand the impact on COVID-19, especially as developing countries, with a view of rights, related rights and exceptions and limitations. It noted the lack of international settings that could have enabled a collaborative approach during COVID-19 to handling the impact on education, research, culture and knowledge.</p>
<p>Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iran supported the proposal. South Africa backed both the proposal and the regional consultations along with a preference for completing them in a time bound manner by the next SCCR. Belarus was in support as well.</p>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) was in favour of an information session for evaluating an all-round impact of the pandemic which was not only from a limitations and exceptions viewpoint. In a similar vein, USA suggested that the information session be holistic in its framing – all parts of the copyright system should be taken into consideration. UK (on behalf of Group B) stated that it would prefer to examine a formal proposal document on such a session first, that should adopt a ‘holistic approach’.</p>
<p>Towards the end, Indonesia questioned whether the idea of a ‘holistic’ information session equally focused on rights and related rights could even be counted or considered as a next step in the limitations and exceptions (“<strong>L&E</strong>”) agenda item.</p>
<h3>2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument <br /></h3>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) stuck to its position of 1) taking an evidence-based approach on the way forward for the L&E agenda and preference to 2) exchanging national best practices instead of creating a binding treaty. Ecuador was also in favour of exchanging best practices. UK (on behalf of group B) was in favour of providing technical assistance to countries, and the EU and USA maintained their position against an international instrument.</p>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) stated that COVID had forced a rethink of role of copyright in ensuring access to educational and resource materials as well as protecting the rights of the creators of the copyrighted works, in situations such as the pandemic. The absence of an international instrument on limitations and exceptions has been widely felt in this context.</p>
<p>Pakistan stated that a baseline international instrument was necessary and would be useful for looking at one’s own national law. South Africa (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) Indonesia reminded everyone that work under this agenda item should proceed under the 2012 mandate of developing a legal instrument on limitations and exceptions. Iran also expressed its support for a norm-setting instrument.</p>
<h3>3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda <br /></h3>
<p>South Africa said that a clear way forward for limitations and exceptions was necessary, and that way forward should not be limited to the views and steps mentioned in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report on the regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions ("<strong>report</strong>")</a>. It also supported the 2012 mandate on developing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of group B) stated that access to knowledge should not inhibit the remunerative rights to authors and performers. Ecuador said that it supported narrow limitations and exceptions that comply with the Berne three-step test.</p>
<p>Russia suggested the creation of a set of “general principles” underpinning this agenda item, to set a base standard agreed by everyone and begin work from that point. It noted that it was crucial to resolve the issues of cross-border sharing, legal uncertainty between countries, and digital preservation. It added that the principles could become the guiding principles for national legislation as well. <br />Pakistan, noting the COVID impact, stated that cross-border cooperation or international norm-setting could be useful. Brazil stated that there was a consensus on preservation and cross-border issues, and room for further discussions on limitations and exceptions for ‘persons with other disabilities’ under this agenda item. Chile added that international guidelines were desirable at least in the area of education, libraries, and archives.</p>
<p>In the end, Indonesia in its statement reminded everyone that there was still no concrete work plan (under this agenda) on the table. This despite the draft report indicating issues such as preservation, online uses, cross-border uses, and safe harbour as feasible for discussion on next steps. The report had also recommended formation of expert groups to study these issues further (para 400 of the report (SCCR42/2)) It added that while it was aligned to the 2012 mandate (of producing a legal instrument), the work plan could include a joint recommendation.</p>
<h3>4. Regional Consultations (as per <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report's recommendation</a>) <br /></h3>
<p>China endorsed the regional consultation. EU supported regional consultations, noting that COVID had impacted creative cultural industries as well. Pakistan stated that it was important for the consultations to include beneficiaries of this agenda item.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of Group B) questioned whether holding regional consultations were necessary during a pandemic, and later added that the regional consultations and information session exercises should not be executed together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:55:30ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions agenda on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>As we move forward on this agenda, we believe that for a
true balance to be realised, the rights of all users of copyrighted works will
have to be treated on par with those of the rightholders for purposes of
access to knowledge. We are disappointed
with the state of the limitations and exceptions in the broadcast treaty, that
made some progress yesterday (in terms of increasing rights).</p>
<p>Further, as we have submitted earlier, it is our belief that
the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the
opportunities presented by new information and communication technologies. We
reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area - which
should also facilitate smooth cross border exchange of knowledge.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:43:08ZBlog Entry