Centre for Internet and Society

Kannada Wikipedia Editathon Coverage in Prajavani

praskrishna — 2016-01-05T06:40:52Z

The article was published in Prajavani Mangal on December 10, 2015. A scanned version of the article is below.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kannada-wikipedia-prajavani-mangal

Kannada Wikipedia Editathon in Prajavani

praskrishna — 2016-01-05T06:39:56Z

The article was published in Prajavani on December 13, 2015. A scanned version of the article is below.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kannada-wikipedia-editathon-in-prajavani

Telugu Wikipedia Day 2015, Photo Walk

praskrishna — 2016-01-05T06:27:08Z

On December 13, 2015, Telugu Wikipedians conducted a historical photowalk in Dr.YSR state archeological museum to celebrate Telugu Wikipedia Day 2015. Pavan Santhosh attended the event as a CIS-A2K representative and facilitated media coverage for the programme.

One of the popular telugu news channel TV9 covered the event and telecasted the same. Eenadu published a special item on photowalk on December 13, 2015.

Andhra Jyoti published an article on photowalk on December 18:

Eenadu news report on photowalk on December 18:

Namaste Telangana on Photowalk on December 18:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/telugu-wikipedia-day-2015-photo-walk

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର

subha — 2016-01-05T06:30:35Z

Odia newspaper Sambad carried this featured column of mine yesterday in their Sunday supplement "Sambada Rabibara" on December 6, 2015.

It sheds light on how important it is to digitize published work and make them available in open standard. Odia Wikisource, a sister project of Odia Wikipedia and a free and open online library, is growing up with more and more Odia books every day. With a vast majority of the native language speakers seeking knowledge online, useful content like available online is going to pay a very crucial role. Be it popular literature or popular science writings, Odia Wikisource is growing up with books of various genre and helping preserve old published works.

ଭାଷାଟିଏ ବଢ଼ିଲେ ବଢ଼ନ୍ତି ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ । ବଢ଼େ ସେ ଭାଷାର ଅଭିଲେଖ । ଆଉ ଆମ ଭାଷାଟି କେଇ ଶହ-ହଜାର ବର୍ଷ ଭିତରେ ଶାଖା ପ୍ରଶାଖା ମେଲି ଯେ କେଡ଼େ ବିଶାଳ ହୋଇଛି ତାହା ଆମେ ଜାଣୁ । ଭାଷା ନଈଟି ବହୁ ଜାଗା ଦେଇ ବହୁ ବହୁ ଅନେକ ବହି ମଧ୍ୟ ଉତୁରିଉଠିଛି । ସେ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ବହିଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ହୋଇ ପୁନମୁଦ୍ରଣ ହେବା ସହିତ ପିଢ଼ି ପିଢ଼ି ଧରି ପଢ଼ାହେଉଛି। ହେଲେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ତଥ୍ୟ ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାର ଅଭାବରୁ ଲୋକଲୋଚନକୁ ଆସିପାରିନାହିଁ। ତା’ଛଡ଼ା ଅନେକ ବହି ପ୍ରକାଶକ ଓ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ସମ୍ବଳ ଅଭାବ ହେତୁ, ପାଠକଙ୍କ ଅନାଗ୍ରହ ଯୋଗୁ ସାରା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରକୁ ଯାଇପାରନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ । ଏମିତି ଅବସ୍ଥାରେ ଆମ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ସବୁଯାକ ବହି ନ ହେଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ କିଛି ପାଇବେ ତ?

ଆଗରୁ ଆମର କୋଠକାଠିଆ ସମାଜ ଥିଲା। ଏକାଠି ବହୁଲୋକ ବସି ଆଳାପ ଆଲୋଚନା କରୁଥିଲେ। ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ନ୍ୟାୟ ବିଚାର ଯାଏ ସବୁ ହେଉଥିଲା ସେଇଠି । ଆମ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ୁଆମାନେ ସବୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ ସେଇଠି ନେଉଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବୁଦ୍ଧଙ୍କ ଛବି ଖୋଜିଲେ ଏବେ ବି ଗଛ ତଳେ ଚଉକି ଉପରେ ଏକାଠି ହୋଇ ଲୋକେ ବିଚାର କରୁଥିବା ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ । ଏକଦା ଭାଗବତ ଟୁଙ୍ଗିରେ ଭାଗବତ ପଢ଼ାହେବା ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ସେ ଥିଲା କେଇଘଣ୍ଟା ପାଇଁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆଉ ବେଳ ପାଇଁ ଚଳଣି ଆଉ ନ୍ୟାୟଘରା ପରେ ବହିର ଆଲୋଚନାଠାରୁ ସଂଗ୍ରହ ଓ ସଂରକ୍ଷଣ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେଲା । ତେବେ ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ ଲୋକେ ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମାନ ହୋଇପଡ଼ିଲାଣି । ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯେବେ ପୂରାପୂରି ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ମୁହାଁ ହୋଇସାରିଲେଣି, ଆମକୁ ବିଚାରିବାକୁ ହେବ ଏ ରାଶି ରାଶି ପୋଥି କାହା ପାଇଁ । ସମାଜଟିଏ ତା’ର ଆଗାମୀ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ଆଖିରେ ସପନ ଦେଖେ । ତେଣୁ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ପିଢ଼ିର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତାକୁ ଅଣଦେଖା କରି କେବଳ ବହି ଛାପିଲେ ପାଠାଗାର ଯେ ଅଳିଆଗଦାରେ ପରିଣତ ନ ହେବ କିଏ କହିବ? ଆଗାମା ପିଢ଼ି ପାଇଁ କ’ଣ ଲେଖାହେବ, କ’ଣା ଲେଖା ନ ହେବ ଆଉ କିପରି ଲେଖା ହେବ ତାହା ଏକ ଜଟିଳ ବିଷୟ । ଭାଷା କହିଲେ ଖାଲି ସାହିତ୍ୟକୁ ବୁଝାଏ ନାହିଁ ବରଂ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ଏକ ଅଂଶ ବୋଲି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ବୁଝିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ । ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ରଚନା ଓ ସେସବୁ ସାଇତା ହେବାର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ବହୁ ଭାବେ ରହିଛି । ଆମେ ଆଗକୁ ବଢ଼ିବା ବେଳେ ଆଉ ନୂଆ ଭାବିବା ବେଳେ ଆଗରୁ ଘଟିଥିବ ଘଟଣା ଆମ ପାଦ ତଳର ନିଅଁ ଭଳି କାମ କରେ । ତେଣୁ ନୂଆ ପିଢ଼ି ବହିଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯାଉଛନ୍ତି ବୋଲି ଭାବିଲେ ଚୋରକୁ ମାନ ମାରି ଖପରାରେ ଖାଇବା ଭଳି ଦେବାକାମି ହେବା କାଗଜ ଉପରେ ଛପା ବହି ଯେତେ ନିଜର ଲାଗିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଦିନେ ନା ଦିନେ ଚିରିବ କି ଉଇଙ୍କ ଆହାର ହେବା ଆଉ ଆଗତ ଦିନ ପାଇଁ ତାକୁ ସାଇତି ରଖିବାର ସଳଖ ବାଟଟିଏ ହେଲା ତା’ର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ କପି ତିଆରିବା । ଇଂରାଜି, ଫ୍ରେଞ୍ଚ, ସ୍ଥାନିସ୍, ଜର୍ମାନ, ଜାପାନୀ ଆଦି ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖା ପୋଥିପତର ସବୁ ସେଠାର ପାଠକ ଆଜି ବି ଆମ ଭଳି ବହିଧରି ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ଭଲପାଆନ୍ତି । ଲଣ୍ଡନରେ କିଛି ଦିନର ରହଣି କାଳରେ ଦେଖି ଅଭିଭୂତ ହେଲି ସେଠା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ବହି ପଢ଼ାର ସଉକ । ଟ୍ରେନ୍ ଷ୍ଟେସନ୍ ବାଡ଼ାକୁ ଆଉଜି କିଏ ପଢୁଛି ତ କିଏ ଜନଗହଳି ଥାନରେ କଣଟିଏ ବାଛି ଫରଦ ପରେ ଫରଦ ଲେଉଟଉଛି । କିନ୍ତୁ ସେଠାର ପାଖାପାଖି ସବୁ ନୂଆ ବହି ଉଭୟ ଛପା ଓ ଇ-ବହି ବିକ୍ରି ହେଉଛି। ନୂଆ ଟେକ୍ନୋଲୋଜି ଆସିଗଲା ବୋଲି ପୁରୁଣା, ପୂରା ଫୋପାଡ଼ିଦେବା କେବଳ ମଝିମଝିଆ ସମାଜର ଲକ୍ଷଣ । ହେଲେ ଉଚ୍ଚତର ସମାଜରେ ପୁରୁଣା ଓ ନୂଆର ବିଭା ସବୁଠି ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ। ତେଣୁ ଆମ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ବିକ୍ରି କମିଯିବ ବୋଲି ହାଉଳି ଖାଇ ଆମେ ନୂଆପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଆମ ବହିର ବାସନାପାଣିରୁ ବଞ୍ଚିତ କରୁନୁ ତ ? ଯଦି ସତରେ ଆମ ପର ପିଢ଼ି ଆମ ବହିଯାକ ନ ପଢ଼ନ୍ତି ତା’ହେଲେ ଏ ଜାତିର ଇତିହାସରେ ଆମେ ଲାଙ୍ଗୁଡ଼ଜକା ଆଉ ଚିରକାଳ ଦୋଷୀ ହୋଇ ରହିଯିବୁ ।

ଅବଶ୍ୟ ବହି କିଣି ହାତରେ ଧରି ପଢୁଥିବା ଲୋକଟି କେବେ ହେଁ ମୋବାଇଲ: ଟାବଲେଟ୍-କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍-କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ସୁଖ ମଣିବ ନାହିଁ । କିନ୍ତୁ ବିମାନରେ ଯିବା ବେଳେ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିଲେ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ମାଧମରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆଉ ବିଶାଳ ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥର କେଉଁ କୋଣରେ ଲେଖାଟିଏ ଖୋଜିବାକୁ ଚାହିଲେ, ସବୁ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ନ ଖୋଜି ପାଠକଟିଏ ସଳଖେ ସଳଖେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜିପାରିବା ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ ତିଆରିବାରେ ‘ସୃଜନିକା’ ନାମକ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର ଅବଦାନ କାହିଁରେ କେତେ ପାଖାପାଖି ଦେଢ଼ ଲକ୍ଷ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ସ୍କାନ୍ କରି ସେମାନେ ଅନେକ ଇ-ବହି ତିଆରି କରିସାରିଲେଣି। ୧୮୫୦-୧୯୫୦ ଭିତରେ ଛପା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପତ୍ରପତ୍ରିକାସବୁ ପ୍ରାୟ ଏଥିରେ ସାମିଲ । odia.org ନାମକ ଆଉ ଏକ ୱେବସାଇଟ୍ କିଛି ନିଜ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ବାକିମାନଙ୍କ ସହଯୋଗରେ କିଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇଛନ୍ତି । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍ ଆର୍‌କାଇଭ୍ (archive.org) ସାଇଟରେ ବହିସବୁ ପିଡିଏଫ୍ ଭାବେ ଅପ୍‌ଲୋଡ କଲେ ତାହା ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଆକାରରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ସୁବିଧା । ହେଲେ ଲୋଡ଼ାଥିଲା ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟରେ ପାଠାଗାରଟିଏ । ହେଲେ ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଖାଲି ପାଠକ ରହିଲେ କି ମଉଜ? ଦିଆ-ନିଆ ନ ଥାଇ ସେ କି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍? ପାଠକ ଯଦି କେଉଁଠି ଭୁଲ୍‌ଟିଏ ଦେଖିଲେ ତାକୁ ବଦଳାଇ ପାରୁଥିବେ, ତା’ହେଲେ ସିନା । ଅନେକ ହୁଏତ ଜାଣି ନ ଥିବେ ସମାଧାନର ବାଟଟିଏ ରହିଛି । ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ (Wikipedia)ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସଂସ୍କରଣ or.wikipedia.org ୨୦୦୨ରୁ ସକ୍ରିୟ ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ୧୦,୦୦୦ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ରହିଛି । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍‌ରେ or wikisource. orgରେ ଖୋଲାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏହି ଅନ୍‌ଲାଇନ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପାଠାଗାରଟି କେବଳ ପଠନ ପାଇଁ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ସମ୍ପାଦନା ଓ ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ରୂପ ତିଆରି ପାଇଁ । ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକର ବହି ପାଇଁ ଟିକେ ହେଉ ପଛେ, କିଛି ଅବଦାନ ରହିବା ଉଚିତ । ଆଉ ସେ ଅବଦାନ ଯଦି ପୁରୁଣା ବିରଳ ବହିର ଲେଖାତକ ଆଉଥରେ ଟାଇପ୍ କରିହୁଏ କି ଆଉ କାହା ଦେଇ ଟାଇପ୍ ହୋଇଥିବା ବହିରେ ଭୁଲଭଟକା ସୁଧାରିବା ହୁଏ, ତା’ହେଲେ ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକ ଜଣେ ଜଣେ ସମ୍ପାଦକ ହେବ । ଆଜିଯାଏ ଭାଷା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ କିମ୍ବା ଆଉ କେଉଁ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ ବିଶାଳତମ କୃତିସବୁ କେବେ ଜଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ଗଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ହୋଇଛି । ଏଇ ଆଗରୁ ଯେଉଁ ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ କଥା କୁହାଗଲା, ସେ ବି ୨୦-୨୫ ପାଖାପାଖି ସକ୍ରିୟ ଉଇକିଆଳିଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ଲିଖିତ ଓ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ । ସେଇଭଳି ଏ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ପାଇଁ ପାଖାପାଖି ୮-୯ ଜଣ ସକ୍ରିୟ ସଭ୍ୟ । ଆଉ ଆନନ୍ଦର କଥା ହେଲା, ଏଥିରେ ନାରୀ-ପୁରୁଷଙ୍କ ଯୋଗଦାନ ପାଖାପାଖି ଏକା । ବହୁଲୋକ ଏକାଠି ମିଳିମିଶି କାମ କଲେ ଆଉ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବର୍ଗର, ଲିଙ୍ଗର ସମାନତା ରହିଲେ ଯାଇ କାମଟି ଯେ ପରିପୁଷ୍ଟ ହୁଏ । ଏ ବିଚାର ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ପାଳନ ହୋଇପାରେନା । ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏଯାବତ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତ ଭଳି ବିଶାଳ କୃତିକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ପୁରାତନ ଓ ଆଧୁନିକ ପଞ୍ଚସଖା, ସାଲବେଗ, ଭୀମଭୋଇ, ଭଞ୍ଜଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ ଏ ଯୁଗର କେତେକ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ କୃତି ରହିଛି । ୨୦୧୨ରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟଫ ଦୁଇବର୍ଷ ଧର ସଜବାଜ ହୋଇ ଶେଷରେ ୨୦୧୪ରେ ଜନ୍ମନେଲା । ଆଉ ଏଇ ମାସ ୨୦ରେ ପଢୁଆଁ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ପାଳିଥିବା ଏ ପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏବେ ମାତ୍ର ୨୦୬ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହି । ଆମ ବିଶାଳ ଭାଷାର ବହି-ଦରିଆକୁ ସେ ଶଂଖେ । କପିରାଇଟ୍ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିମାନ ଏଥିରେ ଆଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା ଆହୁରି କେତେ ହାତ । ଏବେ ଗୁଗୁଲ୍ ତିଆରି "ଅପ୍ଟିକାଲ୍ କ୍ୟାରେକ୍ଟର୍ ରେକଗନିସନ୍" ବଳରେ ଅନେକ ବହିର ଛବିରୁ ଲେଖା ବାହାର କରିହେଉଛି । ତାକୁ ସଂଶୋଧନ କରିପାରିଲେ ଅନେକ ବହିକୁ ପୂରା ଟାଇପ୍ କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ । ଏକଥା ଆମେ ହେଜିଲେ ଆମ ଆଗାମୀ ପିଢ଼ିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆହୀନତା ପାଇଁ ଆମକୁ ବେଶି ଭାବିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ। ପିଲେ ତାଙ୍କ ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଟାବଲେଟ୍ କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍ ଖୋଲି ବଳେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିବେ।

- ଶୁଭାଶିଷ ପାଣିଗ୍ରାହୀ

ସେଣ୍ଟର୍ ଫର୍ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍ ଆଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟି, ବେଙ୍ଗାଲୁରୁ

A scanned version of the article below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sambada-rabibara-subhashish-panigrahi-december-6-2015-odia-wikisource

30 Books of Odia Author and Historian Jagannath Prasad Das to Come Online on Odia Wikisource

subha — 2016-01-03T11:19:12Z

The article was published in Discover Bhubaneswar, a web portal on Odisha on December 4, 2015.

Odia author and cultural historian Jagannath Prasad Das has recently permitted to re-license under a free license Creative Commons Share-Alike 4.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 for 30 volumes of his notable works. The author, popularly known as “J P” or “JP Das” has been honored with Saraswati Samman and Sahitya Academy award for his significant contribution in fiction, historical research of Odisha’s cultural heritage in his books Puri Paintings, Chitra-Pothi and Palm-leaf Miniatures apart from his Odia books “Prathama Purusa” and “Bhabanatha O Anyamane”.

“I made a rather late and hesitant entry into the internet and digital world, but it has since become an integral part of my life. My introduction to digital books was through Srujanika’s digitised version of Purnachandra Odia Bhashakosha – all of 95,00 pages in seven volumes — which was impossible to handle on the writing table. That made me think how wonderful it would be to have all Odia books available on the internet that could be easily accessible to every interested reader”, says Das.

“As a beginning I decided to put my own writings on the internet. Many of our young Odia writers are are quite active on the social media. I hope they will take the initiative to get more and more Odia books available on the internet with the help of Odia Wikisource”, he adds.

This contribution opens up a whole new window to his books being accessible to readers for free online. Recently the scanning of the original books were made by the Bhubaneswar based non-profit and science education research organization Srujanika which will now be made available after converting them into text form.

Apart from Dr Das, many other notable individuals like Padma shree Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, Dr Subrat Prusty, Manoj Panda, Bharat Majhi and organisations like Aama Odisha, Manik Biswanath Smrutinyasa have taken the noble step of sharing their works online with free licenses using Odia Wikisource as a platform.

Odia Wikisource, a sister project of the Odia Wikipedia, is available online at or.wikisource.org. There are over 238 books already and all of the books are either under Public Domain or under the above mentioned Creative Commons Share-Alike license which gives the freedom of accessing the works for free, reuse them and even correct if any mistakes found, of course following the guidelines made by the Wikisource community. Currently about 10 Wikisourcers are actively contributing to digitize books of various genre, ranging from science to fiction to even the Odia classics.

With more authors generously opening up their work online, it feels like they are worried of the books becoming obsolete from the new generation leaving them with no way to learn about their own language and literature. Regional languages like Odia are facing the struggle to selling more books with the growing trend of English-centric education and rat race for jobs. In such a tough situation more popular Odia literary content is certainly going to give a boost to readership and will take the language to more people.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discover-bhubaneswar-30-books-of-odia-author-and-historian-jagannath-prasad-das-to-come-online-on-odia-wikisource

Telugu Wikipedia Education Program at Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada

Pavan Santosh — 2016-01-13T07:51:13Z

In collaboration with Andhra Loyola College (ALC), Vijayawada, Access to Knowledge programme (CIS-A2K) of the Centre for Internet and Society is opening up a Wikipedia Digital Centre in the college so that students and local Wikimedians could grow Wikipedia and other Wikimedia content in Telugu and other Indian languages. To begin with this, a two-day long Wikipedia Education Program is also being initiated which will continue to grow further by expanding local content on Wikipedia.

As part of this two-day programme 40 undergraduate students (10 each from Botany, Statistics, Physics and Telugu) will be taking part and will be creating articles in their respective subjects in four languages; Telugu, Hindi, Malayalam and Tamil.

On the 13th a Wikipedia Digital Centre will be opened at ALC. G Umamaheswara Rao of Centre for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies (CALTS) lab, University of Hyderabad will be joining as the chief guest. This lab will have 10 computers and will be jointly managed by the CIS and ALC where the student-Wikipedians and the local Wikimedia community could conduct regular Wikipedia outreach programmes. Joining in this event are principal of the institution Fr. Kishore, Professsor Sivakumari from Department of Botany, Professor Sahayabaskaran, Department of Physics, and Professor Kola Sekhar, Department of Telugu. On behalf of CIS-A2K, Rahmanuddin Shaik and Pavan Santosh will be participating and facilitating the Wikipedia Education Program and the inauguration of the lab.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/telugu-wikipedia-education-program-at-andhra-loyola-college-vijayawada

Pervasive Technologies Project Presentations at the 4th Global Congress, 2015

nehaa — 2016-01-21T16:33:41Z

These are the presentations made by the members of the PT Project team at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 at National Law University, New Delhi.

Nehaa Chaudhari: The Curious Case of the CCI: Competition Law and SEP Regulation in India
Amba Uttara Kak and Maggie Huang: Rethinking Music Copyright Management in the Age of Digital Distribution: Business Models, Licensing Practices and Copyright Institutions in India
Rohini Lakshané: Patent Landscaping in the sub-$100 Mobile Device Market in India
Anubha Sinha: IP in Mobile Applications Development in India

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015

Patented Games

sunil — 2012-03-08T12:14:22Z

Some prefer Steve Jobs, patron saint of perfection, others prefer Nicholas Negroponte, messiah of the masses. While Mr Jobs may be guilty of contributing to the digital divide, Mr Negroponte may have contributed to bridging it with his innovation: the One Laptop Per Child, also known as the $100 laptop or XO. Sunil Abraham's column was published in the Economic Times on 8 March 2012.

Much ink has been spilt celebrating the contributions of both, but if we were to judge them by utilising evidence from the market, their technologies are used by a rather thin section of the pyramid.

For this writer, however, the real heroes are entrepreneurs from China and Taiwan who make technology that is used by millions of Indians and other consumers across the globe. Sometimes it comes with domestic branding and with all the right peripherals - for example, in India, the Popkorn, which costs only Rs 6,699. It features support for two SIM cards, a receiver for analogue terrestrial television, a receiver for FM radio, a 3.2-megapixel camera, boom-box style internal speakers and, most impressively, a pica projector. It ships with a tripod stand, external speakers, a torch and a laser pointer. It is a classroom in a box. At other times, it comes as a Shanzhai clone of a branded product - for example, the Blackcherry, at one-sixth the price-point with twice the number of cameras as the Blackberry. Some Shanzhai phones support four SIM cards and ship with a spare battery.

Dual- and quad-SIM support is critical in developing countries, especially Africa, where regulation has failed to rationalise interconnection costs. Most of the global south is yet to harvest the digital dividend, so TV reception is very useful indeed. And the additional battery is invaluable for rural entrepreneurs who are not sure whether their next halt will sync with the local load-shedding schedule.

The same with the focus on audio capabilities, reflecting the communal usage patterns. Unlike many expensive big-brand phones that require purchase of additional software, these phones often have in-built support for a wide variety of proprietary and open file formats.

These products are unavailable in the US and Europe because they would be sued out of the market by rights-holders or snuffed out by enforcement activities. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, says "smartphones might involve as many as 2,50,000 (largely questionable) patent claims". But there are three important differences for the Indian consumer. One, many of these patents are registered in the US, Europe and Japan and, therefore, prevent others from securing those patents in other jurisdictions. But it does not prevent Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs from using the patents. Two, unlike the US patent law, the Indian Patent Act does not consider "mathematical or a business method or computer program per se or algorithms" as inventions. And three, Indian courts, unlike their US and European counterparts, are less likely to grant injunctions preventing sale or use of any device.

Patent pools are a century-old policy tool for reducing royalties and uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers. In 1917, the US government forced aircraft patent-holders, including the famous Wright Brothers, into a patent pool that allowed 60 firms to produce planes at reduced royalty costs without worrying about litigation. Since then, the US government has issued thousands of compulsory licences in many different domains. Patent pools do exist in some areas of mobile technologies such as GSM and video file formats, but more patent pools are needed.

The Chinese government has used standards policy in the past to reduce outgoing royalties on information and communication technologies. They promoted or mandated indigenous standards either as a negotiating tactic with rights-holders or to benefit from cross-licensing of domestic IP. Some standards include TD-SCDMA, as an alternative to Qualcomm's CDMA, EVD as an alternative to the DVD standard, and CBHD as an alternative to Sony's Blu-ray. The potential savings were quite significant. In the words of Ma Jun, Deutsche Bank's chief China economist, "There is almost no profit for Chinese DVD makers as they have to pay about $7 in licensing fees to foreign patent holders per DVD player, which are sold at around $20 only - both at home and abroad."

In addition to patent and standards policy, royalty caps have been used to ensure access to innovative technologies. Till the end of 2009, the Indian government had imposed a royalty cap of 5% on domestic sales and 8% on exports. If a company wanted to pay higher royalties, permission had to be secured from an inter-ministerial Project Approval Board. Between 1991 and 2009, only 8,062 approvals were granted, indicating our government was keen to reduce outgoing royalties. Policymakers could reconsider reintroducing such royalty caps for devices that cost less than $200.

(The author is with the Centre for Internet and Society)

Read the original published in the Economic Times

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games

Will domain dot भारत spur the growth of Indian languages on the internet?

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T05:50:11Z

Modi's effort to promote the use of Hindi and e-governance has given hope to those who want to see more vernacular content online, but many challenges have to be overcome.

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan's blog post was published in Scroll.in on August 29, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

For most of its short history, the internet has been the English speaker’s playground. Though English is the world’s third-most spoken language (after Mandarin and Spanish), it is by far the most commonly used language on the internet. If you wanted to make sense of most of what’s on the World Wide Web, you had to be able to read and write English.

This is slowly changing. The launch of Devanagari script web addresses on Sunday, allowing people to use .भारत domain names, was another step in the slow effort to bring about a multilingual Web. Already, Indian languages like Hindi – one of the most commonly-spoken languages on Earth – lag far behind. The move gels well with the new government’s effort to promote the use of Hindi, and its push to increase digital services available to all citizens. The next few years could well see a spurt in vernacular content online.

But first many challenges have to be overcome. “At present, not a single Indian language figures in the top 10 languages prevalent on the Internet, though Chinese, Arabic and Russian feature in the list,” said a McKinsey report on the internet's impact on India. “The next wave of internet adoption in India will be dominated by local language speakers, which underscores the need for much more content and applications to be offered in local languages.”

Vernacular internet
Early studies of the internet attempted to quantify how much of the web was in English. A 1997 estimate put the number at 80% of all websites, while the Online Computer Library’s study in 2003 concluded that 72% of all online content was in English. Today that number is much lower.

W3Techs, which conducts surveys of the internet, now estimates that about 55% of content on the Internet is in English, followed by German, Russian and Japanese. Indian languages don’t crack the top 35.

The analysis is by its nature imprecise. The internet is vast and mostly uncharted. Estimates suggest search engines have indexed only 40% of Web content, leaving much off the mainstream radar. Measuring language becomes even harder because, in the early years, when fonts were harder to render, most non-English content on the internet was spelt out in Roman letters.

Indian Wiki
The rise of multilingual scripts has changed that, and made it easier to evaluate the diversity of the internet. Yet even the best approach relies more on sampling than measurement. There is one section of the Web, however, that does allow for comparisons of absolute numbers.

Relative to other tongues, Indian language-articles still comprise a minuscule portion of Wikipedia. English, Spanish and French are perhaps expected, but even languages like Vietnamese have nearly 10 times the number of pages that Hindi does. Waray-Waray, the fifth-most commonly spoken language in the Philippines, appears to be an outlier because of an automated translation method that creates pages in that language.

Hindi content has been growing on the internet encyclopedia, from no pages in 2003 to more than one lakh in 2011, but it still falls far behind the languages that are spoken as commonly as it, like Spanish and Arabic, let alone those with much smaller reach. Of course in many countries English is not spoken at all, so Internet users need web pages in their own language. In India, because of the language-class association, the majority of Internet users are at least conversant in English.

Obstacle Course
The impediments to further growth are all too apparent. For one, internet infrastructure still leaves much to be desired. Though India has the third-largest internet user-base in the world, only 10% of the country is actually online. Even by 2015, when internet access is expected to reach 28% of the population, the equivalent rural figure is likely to be just 9%, according to estimates.

“A lot of the core infrastructure that is necessary for language computing is missing,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet & Society. “There’s no mandate by the government that these languages must be supported, no comprehensive dictionaries, no thesauri, no machine translation capabilities, no optical character recognition capabilities. Because our market is so insignificant for proprietary software makers, they haven’t done enough to develop these. Meanwhile, the free software community is too small and mostly English-speaking.”

The government has launched some initiatives in this regard, like a National Translation Mission aimed at machine translating text from English into Indic languages, as well as banks of fonts that are free to use. But Abraham said that while the government is clear this should be a priority area, it underestimates the scale of the problem.

“We need large scale investment by the government into each language,” he said. “We’re looking at maybe even Rs 100 crore per language, to bring each of our traditional languages into the internet age.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/scroll-in-rohan-venkataramakrishnan-will-domain-dot-bharat-spur-the-growth-of-Indian-languages-on-the-internet

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

nehaa — 2016-04-04T14:39:05Z

This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.

It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.

Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.

It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.

Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.

The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century.

Information Session on Broadcasting

Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.

Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.

Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.

Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.

John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.

He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.

However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.

Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.

Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.

George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.

Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.

Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.

Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.

She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.

Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.

Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.

Day 2: June 30, 2015

Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 ^nd SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.

Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29^th SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.

Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.

The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.

Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.

South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.

National Statements on General Principles

Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.

The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.

Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.

Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.

Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.

India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.

Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.

Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.

Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.

Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.

The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.

Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.

China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.

India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy.

Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.

The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content per se.

India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.

Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.

Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.

The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.

Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.

Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.

The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.

As per the EU, the definitions in Document SCCR 27/2 needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.

At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.

Defining 'broadcasting organizations'

The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.

Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.

Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.

Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.

Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.

Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.

South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.

Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.

The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.

The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.

Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.

The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.

Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.

Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.

Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.

Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.

The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.

The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.

India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.

Chair's Conclusions

At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.

Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.

Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.

Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.

The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Regional Statements on General Principles

Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.

Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28^th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.

Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.

Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.

Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.

China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.

The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.

Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.

Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.

India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.

Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.

Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.

The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.

Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.

South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.

The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.

Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.

Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.

Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.

Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.

Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.

Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.

Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.

Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.

Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.

Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.

Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.

Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.

Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.

Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.

The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Approach Forward

The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.

There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.

The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.

Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.

Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.

Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.

The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.

The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.

The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.

The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.

Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.

This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.

Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.

Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.

Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.

Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27^th SCCR.

The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.

South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.

Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.

The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.

The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.

Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.

Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.

Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.

Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.

Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.

The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.

The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.

Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US

Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.

Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.

Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.

Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.

Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.

The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.

China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.

The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.

After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.

Preservation

Non-Governmental Organizations

Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.

The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.

The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.

According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.

Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21^st century.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.

The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.

The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.

The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.

The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.

The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.

The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.

Member States

Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.

The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.

Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.

UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.

Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.

Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.

Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.

India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.

Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.

The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.

EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.

The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.

Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.

Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.

EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.

Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.

The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.

Day 1: July 3, 2015

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.

The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities
and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.

The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.

China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.

Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.

The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.

Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.

Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.

Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.

Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.

South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.

Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.

Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.

Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.

Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.

Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.

The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.

Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.

Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.

Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.

The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.

Chair's Summary

The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.

Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.

The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.

Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.

Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.

The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.

The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.

Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.

Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.

Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.

Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.

India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.

The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.

The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.

Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.

The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.

South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.

The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society

March 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-09T07:33:44Z

In this month we announced the new clusters from Researchers at Work: Locating the Mobile, Interface Intimacies and Habits of Living.

Research

New series from RAW, new Clusters now Online!

From 2012 to 2015, the RAW series will build research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. We hope to build knowledge networks and production of new knowledge around questions of body, governance and cultural production in the digital times that we live in. Spearheaded by experts in the field of science, technology, society and culture the clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia.

Locating the Mobile: An Ethnographic Investigation into Locative Media in Melbourne, Bangalore and Shanghai
Larissa Hjorth (RMIT University, Melbourne), Genevieve Bell (Intel, Shanghai)
As yet we know little about the impact locative media is having, and will have upon people’s livelihoods and identity, or on public policy around privacy, identity, security and cultural production. Discourse in the field has opened up questions of art, innovation and experimentation. But there is a dearth of nuanced research on locative media that provides in-depth, contextual accounts of its socio-cultural and political dimensions. Not much work has been conducted into locative media as it migrates from art to the ‘messy’ area of everyday. The project seeks to address this knowledge gap by studying locative media in Bangalore, Melbourne and Shanghai.

Interface Intimacies
Audrey Yue (Melbourne University) and Namita Malhotra (ALF)
Users of technologies often express their engagement with technologies in affective terms. The interfaces that we see all around us constantly deflect our attention, emotions and desires on to different surfaces, creating flattened universes with the promises of deep immersion. Digging deep into interfaces, to examine peoples’ relationships with the digital interfaces around them the research cluster examines: What are the affective relationships that people have with their interfaces? What goes into anthropomorphising an interface? What are the larger politics of labour, performance and ownership that surround interface design? What are the ways in which people simulate presence and connections through their interfaces? How is the human presumed in computer-human interface design? What aesthetic and political moves are we witnessing with the rise of interface mediated publics? What and who is made opaque when interfaces become transparent? When interfaces get distributed, what are the possibilities and potential for art, theory and practice to move into new forms of politics?

Habits of Living: Global Networks, Local Affects
Wendy Chun (Professor, Brown University), Kelly Dobson, (Chair, Digital + Media, RISD, Providence), Matthew Fuller, David Gee (Reader in Digital Media, Center for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London) and Eivind Rossaak, (Associate Professor, Department of Research, National Library of Norway, Oslo).
This is a global collaborative project to renew the conceptual power of networks. It concentrates on changing the habits of living. The Department of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University will be an important locus. Habits are crucial to understanding networks not simply as broad organizational structures but also as structures created through constant actions that are both voluntary and involuntary.

Digital Natives

Video Contest

Who’s the Everyday Digital Native? A global video contest finds the answer!
CIS and Hivos are excited to announce the top five videos. The finalists will each win EUR 500. According to Nishant Shah, the 12 video proposals show that the everyday digital native does not wake up in the morning and think, ‘today I will change the world’. Yet, in their everyday lives, when they see the possibility of producing a change in their immediate environments, they turn to the digital to find networks that can start a change.

Public Lectures

D:Coding Digital Natives (Nishant Shah, University of California, Los Angeles, March 9, 2012)
"In the last three years of revolutions we have also now witnessed this extraordinary thing where lot of promises were made of different kinds of revolution but which never materialised in terms of what they intended to. Citizen action happens but it doesn’t lead into anything concrete." The lecture is featured in YouTube.

Digital Natives and the Myth of the Revolution: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action (Nishant Shah, Annenberg School of Communication, University of South California, March 8, 2012): Nishant Shah made a presentation on 'Questioning the Radical Potential for Citizen Action'.
5 Challenges for the Future of Learning: Digital Natives and How We Shall Teach Them (Digital Media and Learning Conference on Beyond Education Technologies, Wyndham Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, March 1, 2012). Nishant Shah gave a ignite talk.
Digital Natives and the Myth of the Revolution: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action (UC Santa Cruz, Monday, March 5, 2012). Nishant Shah gave a lecture. The lecture focused more on the India against Corruption case-study rather than the theoretical framework to understanding revolutions.

Column in Indian Express

Pinning the Badge
Nishant Shah, March 18, 2012
In a world of competition, badging provides a holistic way of grading and learning, where individual talents are realized and the knowledge of the group is used. A peer-2-peer system of badging, which enables learners to be critically aware not only of their own interaction with knowledge but also recognises the ways in which larger communities of knowledge — including the peers and teachers — opens up an extraordinary way of thinking about education.

Book Review...A Few Excerpts

An Experiment in Social Engineering: The Cultural Context of an Avatar
‘Engineering a cyber twin’ is an attempt to inventory the ontological features of an avatar... Ansher’s essay… eschews a simplistic binary of offline/online, preferring to focus on the domain of interaction between the two ‘personae’ of the same self.
Pramod K. Nayar reviews Nilofar Shamim Ansher’s essay ‘Engineering a Cyber Twin’ from Digital Alternatives with a Cause? Book One: To Be.

Accessibility

Analysis

Analysis of Comments by WBU & IPA
Rahul Cherian provides an analysis of the comments by the World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association after the 23rd session of the Standing Committee of Copyright and Related Rights.

Event Organised

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility (India International Centre, New Delhi, March 14 to 15, 2012): At the invitation of the Centre for Internet and Society, in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India, International Telecommunication Union organized a two-day Tutorial on Audio Visual Media Accessibility. The Tutorial was preceded by the fourth meeting of the Focus Group on Audio Visual Media Accessibility on March 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham participated in the event and was the Master of Ceremony on Day 1, March 14, 2012.

Access to Knowledge

Op-ed in Economic Times

Patented Games, Sunil Abraham, March 8, 2012
Some prefer Steve Jobs, patron saint of perfection, others prefer Nicholas Negroponte, messiah of the masses. While Mr. Jobs may be guilty of contributing to the digital divide, Mr. Negroponte may have contributed to bridging it with his innovation: the One Laptop per Child, also known as the $100 laptop or XO.

Events Participated

Consumers International Global Meeting 2012 (Kuala Lumpur, March 8 and 9, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in the global meeting organised by Consumers International and spoke on UN Consumer Guidelines. Robin Brown, Tobias Schönwetter and Guilherme Varella were the other speakers in the session.
Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights (London, November 18, 2011): The meeting was organized by ARTICLE 19. Nineteen international scholars, experts and human rights activists met to explore the antagonistic relationship between Intellectual Property (IP) and the rights to freedom of expression and information. Pranesh Prakash was one of the participants.

Openness

Events Organised

Open DataCamp — 2012 (Google, Old Madras Road, Bangalore, March 24, 2012): This was a one-day unconference for people working with data from various sectors to come together and share their projects and ideas. It was organised by the DataMeet group. Pranesh Prakash participated in the event. Google, India Water Portal, Gramener, Microsoft Research, Akshara Foundation, DataMeet, HasGeek and CIS were the sponsors.
Free Arduino Workshop (For Beginners): (CIS, Bangalore, March 3, 2012). The workshop drew participants such as interaction designers, artists and those enthusiastic to get started with creative projects but didn’t have prior experience with electronics. About 20 people participated in the workshop.

Events Participated

Water Data Consultation (Evoma Hotel, Bangalore, March 23, 2012). Pranesh Prakash spoke on Policy Issues and Developments around Open Data. The event was organized by Arghyam.

Internet Governance

Column in FirstPost

Why your Facebook Stalker is Not the Real Problem, Nishant Shah, March 20, 2012:We live in networked conditions. This is a statement that can now be taken at face-value, and immediately explains our highly connected, inter-meshed environments…We need to start looking at larger invasive policies exercises by the different invisible actors like the ISP, ICT ministries, corporate policies, design choices and architecture of interception that sustain the networks we so gladly embrace.

Blog Entries

Statutory Motion against Intermediary Guidelines Rules, Pranesh Prakash:A motion to annul the Intermediary Guidelines Rules was moved on March 23, 2012, by Shri P. Rajeeve, CPI (M) MP in the Rajya Sabha from Thrissur, Kerala. We are very glad that Shri Rajeeve has moved this motion, and we hope that it gets adopted in the Lok Sabha as well, and that the Rules get defeated, notes Pranesh Prakash.

Events Organised

India Explores the Balance Points between Freedom of Expression, Privacy, National Security and Law Enforcement (New Delhi, March 5, 2012). Sunil Abraham participated in this closed-door meeting jointly organised with the Global Network Initiative. Issues relating to freedom of expression and privacy were discussed in the meeting.
Climate Change and Controversy Mapping (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, March 19 to 21, 2012). The Devechia Centre for Climate Change, the Indian Institute of Science and CIS organized a three-day workshop with Professor Bruno Latour. Doctorate students doing empirical work in various types of ecological crisis participated in the event and experimented with some of the digital tools and methods developed within the "mapping controversies" consortium.
GeekUp with Erica Hagen (CIS, Bangalore, March 1, 2012). HasGeek organized a GeekUp with Erica Hagen of the GroundTruth Initiative. Erica gave a lecture on the theme: "From Information to Empowerment: Unpacking the Equation.
Cartonama Workshop (CIS, Bangalore, March 2 and 3, 2012). HasGeek organized a hands-on training for managing and building location based services. Twenty-two participants attended the workshop.
Global Censorship Conference

Events Participated

The Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School is holding a conference on global censorship from March 30 to April 1, 2012, at Yale Law School. The programme is sponsored by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and Thomson Reuters. Rishabh Dara, Google Policy Fellow who worked at CIS office in Bangalore on freedom of expression and internet-related policy issues is participating in the event as a speaker in the panel on Case Studies of Censorship.

What is Stewardship in Cyberspace? (Innis Townhall, University of Toronto, Canada, March 18 and 19, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the session “Plenary Panel and Discussions” at the second annual Cyber Dialogue.
Secure IT 2012 — Securing Citizens through Technology (Claridges, New Delhi, March 1, 2012): The event was co-organised by DST and NSDI, Govt. of India in partnership with Elets Technomedia Pvt. Ltd. Sunil Abraham was a panelist. The video is now online.
International Conference on Mobile Law (ASSOCHAM House, New Delhi, March 1, 2012): Pranesh Prakash spoke in the panel on Mobiles - Privacy and Social Media on March 1, 2012.
Data protection experts slam state for sending mass SMSes

Media Coverage

Data protection experts slam state for sending mass SMSes
"The state government's use of unsolicited SMS a “clear abuse of the powers afforded by elected office... elected representatives would be justified in such measures, and in utilising public funds, in the event of a disaster, or when public order, public health or national security are compromised."
Sunil Abraham, The Statesman, March 25, 2012.

Open access to government data on the cards
"Welcoming the approval for the NDSAP, Pranesh Prakash, said, “None of the criticisms ... CIS had sent in as part of the feedback requested on the draft have been addressed."
Pranesh Prakash, The Hindu, March 25, 2012.

Is your facebook page your mini resume?
"Background checks are common as some companies deal with sensitive information. So it’s not illegal, but intrusive. I think some power relationships can be abused if they cross the social networking barrier — like a boss-employee and teacher-student relationship."
Sunil Abraham, IBN Live, March 26, 2012.

Click, Play, Watch
"Earlier, creative artistes depended on intermediaries like studios, TV channels and theatres to screen their work and connect with viewers. Now, they are looking at the online medium to connect with the audience directly."
Sunil Abraham, MidDay, March 18, 2012.

Save Your Voice — A movement against Web censorship
"Private sector does not protect the freedom of expression."
Daily News & Analysis, March 13, 2012.

India’s Big Bet on Identity
"There are obviously both privacy and security concerns when you’re collecting personal data from more than a billion people. “You can’t change your biometrics,”… so if they become compromised, it’s a difficult problem to fix."
Ieeespectrum. March 2012 edition.

Telecom

Columns in Business Standard

The 2G Supreme Court Judgment
Shyam Ponappa, March 1 and March 4, 2012
The Business Standard published Shyam Ponappa's two-part article deconstructing the assumptions in the Supreme Court's 2G judgment, and suggesting possible ways forward. The first one was published on March 1, 2012, and the second on March 4, 2012.

Blog Entry

Convergence India 2012
Yelena Gyulkhandanyan
Yelena attended an event organised by the Exhibitions India Group from March 21 to 23, 2012. She shares her experiences.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with International Telecommunications Union, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With foreign governments we worked on National Enterprise Architecture and Government Interoperability Framework for Govt. of Iraq; Open Standards Policy for Govt. of Moldova; Free and Open Software Centre of Excellence project plan for Saudi Arabia; eGovernance Strategy Document for Govt. of Tajikistan. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, Interoperability Framework in eGovernance, Privacy Bill, NIA Bill, National Policy on Electronics and IT Act.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

Follow us Elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter

Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/march-2012-bulletin

April 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-07T06:26:40Z

In this issue of our newsletter, we bring you updates of our latest research, event reports, videos, news and media coverage during the month of April 2012:

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Google Policy Fellowship

Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet
Rishabh Dara, Google Policy Fellow
CIS in partnership with Google India conducted the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. This was offered for the first time in Asia Pacific as well as in India. Rishabh Dara was selected as a fellow. He researched upon issues relating to freedom of expression. The results of the paper demonstrate that the ‘Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011’ notified by the Government of India on April 11, 2011 have a chilling effect on free expression.

Announcement

The Centre for Internet & Society Joins the Global Network Initiative
CIS officially joined the Global Network Initiative. CIS would bring to GNI in-depth expertise on global internet governance as well as online freedom of expression and privacy in India. GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan said “We are delighted to add our first member based in India and welcome CIS’s engagement in support of transparency and accountability in technology.”

Op-ed in the Hindu

Chilling Effects and Frozen Words (Lawrence Liang, Hindu, April 30, 2012): “What if the real danger is not that we lose our freedom of speech and expression but our sense of humour as a nation?...One hopes that our lawmakers, even if they are averse to reading the Indian Constitution, will be slightly more open to the poetic licence granted by Kautilya.”

Columns in the Indian Express

The Idea of the Book (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, April 8, 2012): “Its future lies in a trans-media format that is ever evolving... The form of the book is going to change as it has over the last 500 years. However, the idea of the book — a receptacle that contains and records collective wisdom, information, ideas, knowledge, experiences and imagination of humankind – is here to stay.”
India's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism by Pranesh Prakash. (An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as "Practise what you preach" on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)

Event Reports

The All India Privacy Symposium (India International Centre, New Delhi, February 4, 2012): The symposium was organised around five thematic panel discussions: privacy and transparency, privacy and e-governance initiatives, privacy and national security, privacy and banking and health privacy. Privacy India in partnership with CIS, International Development Research Centre, Privacy International, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Society in Action Group organised this event.
The High Level Privacy Conclave (Paharpur Business Centre, Nehru Place Greens, New Delhi, February 3, 2012): The conclave was organised around two panels: national Security and privacy and internet and privacy. Malavika Jayaram moderated the first panel discussion on national Security and privacy. Sunil Abraham moderated the second panel discussion on internet and privacy. Privacy India in partnership with CIS, International Development Research Centre, Privacy International, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Society in Action Group organised this event.

Events Organised

Resisting Internet Censorship: Strategies for Furthering Freedom of Expression in India (Bangalore International Centre, TERI Complex, Domlur, April 21, 2012): CIS co-organised this event with the Foundation for Media Professionals. Members of Parliament, P. Rajeeve and Rajeev Chandrashekar and Member of Legislative Council, Karnataka, V.R. Sudarshan participated in the event.
Konkan Corridor Project — A Lecture by Vasant Gangavane (Ashoka Innovators for the Public, Bangalore, April 16, 2012): Well known social worker Vasant Gangavane gave a lecture.
Braitenberg Cybernetic Vehicles: Workshop, Film Screening & Discussion (Metaculture Media Lab, CIS, Bangalore, April 14, 2012): There was a short presentation about Braitenberg vehicles.

Events Participated

GIGA International Conference Series - 1 (NALSAR University of Law, Justice City Campus, Shameerpet, Hyderabad, April 5 and 6, 2012): The Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy and Department of Electronics and Information Technology organised the conference. Sunil Abraham gave a lecture on Digital Natives vs. Digital Naivety in the session on Internet Governance & Society.
Expert-Group on Privacy Issues (New Delhi, April 13 and 14, 2012): The Planning Commission constituted this expert group under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah. Sunil Abraham participated in the first meeting of the sub-group on privacy issues.

Video

Privacy International's Trip to Asia (by Emma Draper in Privacy International blog): In February 2012, the Privacy International team travelled to India, Bangladesh and Hong Kong to meet with local partners in the region and speak at four conferences they had organized. The team got a chance to interview its partners in India and Bangladesh on the privacy issues facing them at the moment. This is captured in a video about contemporary privacy issues in India and Bangladesh.

Media Coverage

It’s mainstream vs social (Guest column by Mahima Kaul, Sunday Guardian, April 30, 2012): “If the video is judged to be 'obscene', then under s.67 of the Information Technology Act, 'causing [obscenity] to be transmitted', is also a crime,”...Sunil Abraham quoted in the Sunday Guardian.
From Cyber India to Censor India: Groups challenge didactic govt (by Satarupa Paul, Sunday Guardian, April 29, 2012): “Instead of a court deciding what makes content illegal, private intermediaries get to decide. And there is no penalty for anyone abusing the take-down notice system,”...Sunil Abraham quoted in the Sunday Guardian.
Social Media 1, Indian Government 0 (by Heather Timmons, New York Times, April 26, 2012): “Because India does not have a bilateral cyber-crime agreement with the United States (as the European Union does), getting American companies like Facebook and Google to take down or investigate the source of content that offends Indian government officials can be a slow and cumbersome process,”...Sunil Abraham quoted in the New York Times.
Private sector censors (by Salil Tripathi, LiveMint, April 25, 2012): “Companies which have no interest in free speech are now taking these decisions. They have the power to do so and they are using it without any sense of responsibility,”...Sunil Abraham quoted in LiveMint.
Views | Why the Left may for once be right (by Pramit Bhattacharya, LiveMint, April 23, 2012): “It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book,”...Pranesh Prakash quoted in LiveMint.
Campaign against curbs on websites gathers steam (by Arpan Daniel Varghese, IBN Live, April 23, 2012): “If a company wants to target your organization’s social media network, they can keep sending fraudulent emails to you and you will have to keep deleting it unless you are ready to face litigation or government action...Sunil Abraham quoted in IBN Live.
Expect anti-net censorship echo in house (by Arpan Daniel Varghese, IBN Live, April 25, 2012): “why should freedom of speech and expression be any different on the Internet?”...Sunil Abraham quoted in IBN Live.
Mobilising support for freedom on the Web (by Deepa Kurup Hindu, April 22, 2012): Rishabh Dara’s research published as part of the Google Policy Fellowship is quoted.
MPs to be taught ‘draconian’ IT Act Rules as India.net support galvanises for annul motion (by Prachi Shrivastava, Legally India, April 23, 2012): Prachi has blogged about the Resisting Internet Censorship co-organised by CIS and the Foundation for Media Professionals in Bangalore.
India arrests professor over political cartoon (by Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post, April 13, 2012): “The state’s new-found aversion to non-believers has gone a bit too far,”...Pranesh Prakash quoted in Washington Post.
A beauty’s blog creates furore (by Lakshmi Krupa, Deccan Chronicle, April 10, 2012).

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a research inquiry that looks at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Public Lecture

5 Challenges for the Future of Learning: Digital Natives and How We Shall Teach Them (Wyndham Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, California, March 1, 2012): Nishant Shah gave a ignite talk. The video is now online.

Book Review...a few excerpts

Immigrants not Natives: “‘To Be’, ‘To Think’, ‘To Act’ and ‘To Connect’ provides many fascinating and thought-provoking insights into the possibilities for reflection, action and interaction,”... Sally Wyatt, eHumanities Group, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences/Maastricht University.

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and electronic accessibility policies:

Event Report

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility (India International Centre, New Delhi, March 14 – 15, 2012): CIS in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India organised a two-day tutorial on Audio-Visual Media Accessibility. Sunil Abraham was the Master of Ceremony on Day 1. Ravi Shanker, Administrator, Universal Service Obligation Fund, Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India, Swaran Lata, Director and Head of Department, TDIL Programme, DIT, R.N. Jha, Deputy Director General (International Relations), Department of Telecommunications and Archana Gulati, Financial Advisor, National Disaster Management Authority participated in this event.

New Fellow at CIS

Rahul Cherian joins CIS: Disability policy activist, lawyer and co-founder of Inclusive Planet, Rahul Cherian has joined CIS as a Fellow. Rahul will be working on disability policy reform and advocacy.

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

New Event

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (FGV Law School, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, December 15 – 17, 2012): We are pleased to announce the Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion,” and will have a special focus on developments and opportunities in the so-called “BRICS” group of emerging economies. CIS is one of the six members of the Global Congress Planning Committee..

News & Media Coverage

Hacking, Modding & Making (by Brendan Shanahan): “If something has been made technologically possible, we cannot make it illegal and hope that everyone will now pretend that this is no longer technologically possible...We can't have the government checking everyone's iPod and laptop. The better move is to change the model,”...Sunil Abraham quoted in GQ.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Event Reports and Video

Arduino Workshop at CIS (CIS, Bangalore, March 3, 2012). Video is now online.
Hejje — Together with Kannada & Technology (Bangalore, January 22, 2012): The event marked the first step to bring everyone working in Kannada in the IT field to brainstorm the ideas for future steps, and create a space for technological collaboration in Kannada. CIS co-organised the event with Sanchaya.net, Vishwakannada.com and Chanda Pustaka.

Events Organised

Bangalore Meet-up for the Open Government Partnership Brasilia (CIS, Bangalore, April 17, 2012): Ananya Panda and Pranesh Prakash participated in the first annual meeting of Open Government Partnership remotely.
Design!PubliC – Event in Delhi (New Delhi, April 19 and 20, 2012): The event was co-organised by Centre for Knowledge Societies in partnership with IBM, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, HeadStart, India@75, LiveMint and CIS.
International Space Apps Challenge (CIS, Bangalore, April 21 and 22, 2012): An international codeathon-style event took place in seven continents, CIS organised the event in Bangalore.

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Column in Business Standard

China 3: Build Comprehensive Ecosystems (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, April 5, 2012): “Failures in electricity, transport and broadband have common strands. China's approach offers a possible alternative.”

About CIS

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2012-bulletin

May 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-07T06:59:29Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of May 2012! In the current issue, we bring to you updates of our latest research, event reports, videos, and media coverage:

Access to Knowledge

Copyright Amendment Bill

Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012
Pranesh Prakash
There are some welcome provisions in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012, and some worrisome provisions. Pranesh Prakash examines five positive changes, four negative ones, and notes the several missed opportunities. The larger concern, though, is that many important issues have not been addressed by these amendments, and how copyright policy is made without evidence and often out of touch with contemporary realities of the digital era. The analysis was reposted in infojustice.org on May 25, 2012.

Op-ed in Indian Express

Copyright Madness (Lawrence Liang and Achal Prabhala, Indian Express, May 22, 2012): 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. This 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.

Call for Participation

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest: Call for Participation and Save the Date (FGV Law School, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, December 15 – 17, 2012): We invite applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.

Event Participated

The International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles (Max Planck Institute, Munich, Germany, May 14 and 15, 2012). The event was organised by the University of Minnesota and Max Planck Institute. Pranesh Prakash participated in the event.

News & Media

Will the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?:(by Margherita Stancati, Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2012): "The singers and producers of...unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars."
Pranesh Prakash quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers? (FirstPost, May 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s article on parallel importation of books is referred in this article.

Accessibility

Blog Entries

Copyright Amendments – Empowering the Print Disabled by Rahul Cherian.
An FAQ on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, for the Benefit of Persons with Disabilities by Dr. Sam Taraporevala and Rahul Cherian.

Openness

Article in the Indian Express

Cancel the Subscription (Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Indian Express, May 8, 2012): It has been a slow but steady move to make scholarship freely available... In India, though, there appears to be very little enthusiasm among the leaders of the science establishment. Neither the office of the principal scientific adviser nor the department of science and technology seems to have shown any interest in mandating open access to taxpayer-funded research. The National Knowledge Commission has recommended mandating open access to all publicly funded research, but it is not clear who will implement the recommendation. Right now, it is left to individuals to promote open access in India.

Event Organised

Design!PubliC — Third Conclave in New Delhi (National Museum, New Delhi, April 20, 2012): The event was organized by the Center for Knowledge Societies in collaboration with IBM, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google and the Centre for Internet and Society. Sunil Abraham was a panelist and spoke in the session on Participation, Collaboration and Innovation.

Internet Governance

Google Policy Fellowship

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications: CIS is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012. The focus areas for the present fellowship programme include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom. The duration of the fellowship will be for about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.

Events Participated

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom (Newseum, Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, D.C., May 23 – 24, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a speaker in Plenary IV, Debate 3: In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom?
Meeting on Internet Governance (Conference Hall No. 4009, Dept. of Electronics & Information Technology, CGO Complex, New Delhi, May 9, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in this meeting.

Op-ed in Down to Earth

Beyond Sharing: Towards our Digital Futures (Nishant Shah, Down to Earth, May 31, 2012): The battle is not about file sharing and a petty film producer wanting to rake in the box office earnings. It is about the law’s incapacity to deal with post-analogue practices and processes.

Columns by Nishant Shah

Open letter to Kolaveri Di makers: How Dare You! (Nishant Shah, FirstPost, May 22, 2012): When it comes to piracy, you are sure to have an opinion. You might either make a virtue out of it, talking about cultural commons and collaborative conditions of production. Or you might vilify it as the social fault-line that is destroying the very pillars of commerce and cultural negotiations.
The Private Eye (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, May 14, 2012): As we move towards a data-driven future, we need to be more aware of the different kinds of data sets that we are making public and educate ourselves about the risks of this disclosure, without being carried away by the sway of meme-like behaviour and viral trends online.

Video

Do IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet: Pranesh Prakash along with Dr. Arvind Gupta, National Convener, BJP IT Cell and Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC participated in a panel discussion on censorship of the Internet on May 8, 2012. The discussion was broadcast on Yuva iTV and featured on YouTube.

Letter

Letter for Civil Society Involvement in ITU’s WCIT (by Center for Democracy and Technology): Academics and civil society groups wrote to the ITU Secretary-General Dr. Hamadoun Touré regarding the lack of opportunity for civil society participation in the World Conference on International Telecommunications process.

Blog Entry

Open letter to Hillary Clinton on Internet freedom (by Sunil Abraham): This blog entry is based on a presentation made in the Internet at Liberty conference in Washington DC on May 24, 2012.

Media Coverage

Why this blocking di? (by R Krishna, Daily News & Analysis, May 27, 2012): “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”
Pranesh Prakash quoted in Daily News & Analysis

Rajeev Chandrasekhar Urges PM To Withdraw India’s Proposal For UN Committee On Internet-Policy (by Anupam Saxena, Medianama, May 16, 2012): An interview that Medianama had with Pranesh Prakash is cited in this blog post.
MPs oppose curbs on internet; Sibal promises discussions (Times of India, May 18, 2012): “The IT minister has promised to hold consultations but the ideal way to do so would have been to scrap the rules and start from scratch... It's not only about language in these rules. There is a problem with provisions like the one that empowers intermediaries to remove content without notifying the user who had uploaded the content or giving users a chance to explain themselves.”
Pranesh Prakash quoted in the Times of India.

Kapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs (by Prachi Shrivastava, Legally India, May 18, 2012): “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”
Pranesh Prakash quoted in Legally India.

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship (by Preetika Rana, Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2012): “Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web...Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?”
Pranesh Prakash quoted in Wall Street Journal.
Taming the Web, are we? (by Javed Anwer, Economic Times, May 13, 2012): "During the revolutions in Arab countries last year, protesters mobilized themselves through Twitter and Facebook. Then there are Wikileaks and Anonymous. This has made governments and politicians jittery."
Sunil Abraham quoted in the Economic Times.

Cordon tightens: Rajya Sabha nod to harsh IT rules (Anil Sharma and Aishhwariya Subramanian, Daily News & Analysis, May 18, 2012): "The trouble with Indian government's proposal to address issues such as network neutrality, privacy and freedom of expression, is top-down. Unlike other countries where internet policies have always been developed with consultation with other stakeholders, here the government imposes its will."
Sunil Abraham quoted in Daily News & Analysis.
"It is an ironical situation where India is not following domestically what it is proposing internationally." Pranesh Prakash quoted in the same article in Daily News & Analysis.

Empires: Individuals in Search of Society (Marc Lafia, Huffington Post, May 18, 2012).
Cyber Appellate Tribunal in Bengaluru (Deccan Herald, May 9, 2012): “The state IT secretary has passed more than 80 orders. They include both cases of phishing and orders against cyber cafes for not adhering to rules under the IT Act. The Adjudicator has held that ‘section 43 of IT Act is not applicable to a body or Corporate’, after the amended IT Act came into force in 2008.” Pranesh Prakash quoted in the Deccan Herald.

Digital Natives

Columns by Nishant Shah

Digitally Analogue (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, May 27, 2012): While those of us who were not born digital natives — we still remember what an audio cassette looks like and the smell of screen printing — will negotiate with the form of our access to cultural objects, it is also time to realise that being non-digital is no longer an option.
We Are All Cyborgs (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, April 29, 2012): The cyborg reminds us that who we are as human beings is very closely linked with the technologies we use.

Citizen Action

Resisting Revolutions: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action (Nishant Shah, Development, Volume 55, Issue 2, May 2012): In this peer reviewed journal article, Nishant Shah looks into the radical claims and potentials of citizen action that have emerged in the last few years. He seeks to show how citizen action is not necessarily a radical form of politics and that we need to make a distinction between Resistances and Revolutions. It locates resistance as an endemic condition of governmentality within a State–Citizen–Market relationship and shows how it often strengthens the status quo rather than radically undermining it. He examines a campaign against corruption in India to see how the dissonance between the claims of the future and the practices of the present is produced in citizen action.

Telecom

Course

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India: Ford Foundation has given a grant of $200,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India over a period of two years. The project involves creating a repository comprising information about telecommunications related issues and policies and online course materials designed for a multi-stakeholder audience, organising interactive public lectures and workshops around the country to disseminate information on telecom issues and using traditional and new forms of media to disseminate information to academia, civil society, policy makers and the general public.

Column in Business Standard

The Coming Telecom Monopoly (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, May 3, 2012): “The 2G judgment and Trai spectrum pricing recommendations have led to a policy that makes sense for only one survivor.”

Event Organised

3rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series at NLSIU, Bangalore (National Law School of India University, Bangalore, May 27, 2012): Organised by CIS in association with the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. Professor Rohan Samarajiva delivered a lecture on Tariff Regulation in South Asia.
The Awesome Contracts Project (Geekup @ CIS, May 18, 2012): CIS co-organised the event with Has Geek. Vivek Durai, co-founder at Awesome Contracts gave a public lecture. Amith Narayan participated through Skype.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With foreign governments we worked on National Enterprise Architecture and Government Interoperability Framework for Govt. of Iraq; Open Standards Policy for Govt. of Moldova; Free and Open Software Centre of Excellence project plan for Saudi Arabia; eGovernance Strategy Document for Govt. of Tajikistan. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, Interoperability Framework in eGovernance, Privacy Bill, NIA Bill, National Policy on Electronics and IT Act.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/may-2012-bulletin

Dot Bharat domain to roll out on August 21

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T07:08:32Z

Web addresses are set to get multilingual in India. Soon you will be able to type in addresses in a web browser in the Devnagri script – with “dot bharat” standing in for the currently common “dot in” domain to begin with. The roll-out of the same begins on August 21.

This was originally published by IANS and mirrored in Firstpost on August 19, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

In the 90-day “sunrise period” of the roll-out those with registered trademarks will be able to register domain names in languages that use the Devnagri script, such as Hindi, Marathi, Boro, Dogri etc. After the sunrise period, it will be thrown open to regular users of the internet.

The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), an autonomous non-profit organisation, is responsible for peering of ISPs and routing the domestic traffic within the country. The NIXI and the government’s Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) have worked on enabling this country code top level domain (ccTLD) of dot bharat. They say more such domains in different scripts and languages will eventually follow.

Currently, one can find content in various languages online. However, the URLs or web addresses are in English. With this rollout, even URLs would be in Hindi or Marathi. “Once the sunrise period runs smoothly, we will introduce other languages in other scripts such as Bengali, Punjabi, Kannada, Telugu etc. There is no timeline set for it yet, but we hope there will be enough pressure with the adoption of the Devnagri domains to implement it soon,” says Mahesh Kulkarni, program coordinator at the C-DAC, heading the language technology group.

A few government websites too will be a part of the launch next week by the union minister of communications and information technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad. “For example, the pmindia dot gov dot in will be pradhanmantri dot sarkar dot bharat,” says Dr Govind, CEO of NIXI.

While some quarters have welcomed the introduction of the new domain, others are doubtful of its success given the low internet penetration and low literacy rate in the country. A June 2014 report from research firm eMarketer, India had the third largest online user-base globally after China and the US but had the lowest internet penetration growth in Asia Pacific at 17.4%. Osama Manzar, who heads the Digital Empowerment Foundation, suggests getting more people and public institutions online rolling out local language domain names.

“This is not a bad move, but I doubt and wonder if it will encourage people to buy domain names in Indian languages. Is it in sync with the national digital infrastructure? It is important that the government encourage every department and village panchayat to get online with a website along with this,” says Manzar.

Sahitya Akademi-winning Hindi writer Uday Prakash finds the Devnagri domain a welcome move, but stresses on the importance of making quality content in regional languages available online. “It’s a good step and will help those who are not comfortable with English. However, the problem remains that most of the content online is in English. If I search for Robin Williams in English, I will find hundreds of webpages. But if I google the same name in Devnagri, I’ll hardly find anything,” says Prakash.

On the other hand, there is also the view that the move towards a multilingual web need not follow a set path. “If a poor person buys a mobile phone before he build a toilet, who are we to judge? It is a market phenomenon. Like a jigsaw, some pieces of the puzzle may be worked out in advance. There are things like Indic input keyboards, text to speech and speech to text that need to be in place before an Indic language speaker can have the same experience as an English language user of the internet,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Center for Internet and Society.

In October 2013, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) delegated generic top level domains in Arabic, Chinese and Cyrillic scripts. This was under the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) fast track process of the ICANN, which began in 2009, inviting requests from countries for territory names in scripts other than Latin. Meanwhile domestically, the union government has made a push for the use of local languages.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/tech-first-post-dot-bharat-domain-to-roll-out-on-august-21

CIS-A2K Signs MoU with Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada: Coverage in Eenadu

praskrishna — 2014-09-09T09:22:23Z

This article was published in Enadu on August 15, 2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/cis-mou-with-alc-coverage-in-eenadu