Centre for Internet and Society

Comments to the MHRD on WIPO Broadcast Treaty (March 2013)

pranesh — 2013-04-23T06:39:36Z

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to make the following comments on the draft legal text of SCCR/24/10 (Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations) at the stakeholders meeting to be held on March 21, 2013.

Article 1 – Preamble: The draft legal text of SCCR/24/10 (“Treaty”) in the Preamble should in clear terms capture the intent of the WIPO General Assembly as to the object of the Treaty. The SCCR reiterated the General Assembly’s mandate for a signal based approach treaty for the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. In this regard, the SCCR in its report to the 50th Session of the WIPO General Assembly (Oct. 1-9, 2012) noted:

“The Committee reaffirmed its commitment to continue work on a signal based approach, consistent with the 2007 General Assembly mandate, towards developing an international treaty to update the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. The Committee also agreed to recommend to the WIPO General Assembly that the Committee continue its work toward a text that will enable a decision on whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2014.” [emphasis added]

Therefore it is submitted that the Preamble should at the very outset establish that the Treaty aims at
- protection of a related right and a signal based approach is adopted to protect such a related right
- protection of the broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.
Article 2 – General Principles: It is submitted that the Development Agenda under TRIPS should be declared as general principle under the Treaty where as a balance must be struck between the rights of the broadcasting organizations and the larger public interest.
Article 5 – Definitions: The Treaty in its current form proposes alternatives to the definitions. On a general observation, it is submitted that the alternatives are unsatisfactory and waivers from the WIPO General Assembly mandate to adopt a signal based approach.

In precise terms, the definition section attributes a broad definition to the “broadcast” and fails to define the means of broadcast. The alternative to 5(b) does reintroduce the phrase, “general public” instead of “public”, as anything lesser would not constitute a broadcast as it was in the Article 5 of the March, 2007 draft non-paper, but fails to adopt a signal based approach by adding the words, “and specific program”.

Similarly definition of “retransmission” under the Alternative A for Article 5 clause (d) uses the words, “transmission by any means” which is again in conflict with the signal based approach.

Apart from the instances mentions above there are many other inconsistencies in the definition section and therefore it is submitted that none of the alternatives to the definition section can be implements within the mandate of the General Assembly.
Article 6 – Scope of Application: We agree with the Alternative A of Article 6, insofar as the alternative to clause 1 is adopted.
Article 9 – Protection for Broadcasting Organizations: In reference to Alternative A for Article 9 it is submitted that the public performance of broadcast signals should not be covered. In many countries, especially lower-income countries, shared viewing of televisions and shared listening to radio are culturally established and it should not be equated with signal theft, which should be the primary focus of this Treaty. Further, free-to-air TV and radio channels and state-sponsored TV and radio channels depend on advertisements and other forms of income, not subscriber payments. Given this, there is no reason why public performance, the wrongfulness of which is very business-model dependent, should be included in this treaty.

We strongly suggest that Alternative B to Article 9 should struck down as it is in contravention of the mandate of the WIPO General Assembly to adopt a signal based approach for the development of the text of the Treaty. There cannot be any fixation or post fixation rights be given to the broadcasting organization if a signal based approach is adopted for the Treaty.
Article 10 – Limitations and Exception: The limitations and exceptions should be mandatory as well, as not balancing limitations and exceptions with the rights granted to the broadcasters would be violating the spirit of the WIPO Development Agenda.

Further, it will also in contravention of Article 3 of the Treaty in its current form. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression recognizes the principles of equitable access and openness and balance. It also mandates implementation of “measures aimed at enhancing diversity of the media, including through public service broadcasting.

It is also reiterated that, reasons for providing exceptions for over broadcast rights are not the same as those for copyright. For instance, a country may wish to make exceptions to signal protection for cases such as broadcast of a national sport, as India has done with the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act. This might well afoul of the three-step test proposed in Article 7(2), especially as it says “provide for the same or further limitations or exceptions...”.

Furthermore, a country may wish to limit the application of broadcasters rights for national broadcasters (whose programming is paid for by taxpayers, and thus should be available to them), but may not be able to do so under the provisions of Article 7(2). Thus, Article 10(2) should be deleted, and Article 10(1) should be expanded to include issues of national interest and for free-to-air broadcast signals.
Article 11 – Term of Protection: As submitted earlier by CIS, it is reiterated that no term of protection should be provided. As was noted by the US government in its response to the draft non-paper, it is questionable “whether a 20-year term of protection is consistent with a signal-based approach”. The Brazilian delegation also states: “Article 13 [of the previous draft treaty] should be deleted. A twenty-year term of protection is unnecessary. The agreed “signal-based” approach to the Treaty implies that the objected of protection is the signal, and therefore duration of protection must be linked with the ephemeral life of the signal itself.” Thus, a term is only needed if we stray away from a signal-based approach. As we do not wish to do so, there should be no term of protection.
Article 12 – Protection of Encryption and Rights Management Information: From our previous submission on this issue we reiterate that, No separate right to prevent unauthorized “decryption” should be granted, since signal-theft is already a crime. For instance, this provision would also cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter. This provides the unauthorized retransmitter rights, even though s/he has no right to retransmit. This leads to an absurd situation.

As stated by the Brazilian government with respect to the April 2007 non-paper:
“[Article 10 of the draft non-paper and Article 9 of the non-paper] is inconsistent with a “signal-based approach”. It creates unwarranted obstacles to technological development, to access to legitimate uses, flexibilities and exceptions and to access to the public domain. It does not focus on securing effective protection against an illicit act, but rather creates new exclusive rights so that they cover areas unrelated with the objective of the treaty, such as control by holder of industrial production of goods, the development and use of encryption technologies, and private uses. The prohibition of mere decryption of encrypted signals, without there having been unauthorized broadcasting activity, is abusive.”

If even the provision is to be retained, it should not grant the broadcasters any rights over and above that which is otherwise granted by the law, thus the following line is over-broad: “that are not authorized by the broadcasting organizations concerned or are not permitted by law.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-wipo-broadcast-treaty

CIS Intervention on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR/SS/GE/2/13

pranesh — 2013-04-25T11:57:02Z

The informal session and special session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights was organised by WIPO in Geneva from April 18 to April 20, 2013. Pranesh Prakash participated in the session and spoke about the rights of the visually impaired. An abridged version of this was read out during the meeting on Saturday, April 20, 2013, at 22:15 due to time restrictions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent the Centre for Internet and Society, a policy research organization based in India. India, as everyone who has been attending these SCCR meetings since 2008 would know, has the world's largest population of blind and visually impaired persons. Two of my colleagues at CIS — Nirmita Narasimhan and Anandhi Viswanathan — are blind, and another one of my CIS colleagues who passed away recently (and whose tireless efforts were remembered here at WIPO recently with a minute of silence) — Rahul Cherian — spent many years working extensively on policy issues related to persons with disabilities, and in particular worked here in WIPO as part of Inclusive Planet, and with the World Blind Union. Hence, this issue is not an abstract one for us, but a very real one.

I commend the delegates here for taking some steps forward during this meeting. However, very disappointingly, with those few steps forward, we have seen a few things we had taken as settled being opened up again, and many steps being taken backward. The already-onerous requirements and procedures laid down in this treaty are seen by a few countries as not being onerous enough. Blind people, it is believed, might 'wrongly' take advantage of these provisions. Worse yet, there is a fear that sighted persons might take advantage of these provisions relating to the blind.

The absurdity of these fears somehow seems to have escaped the notice of many involved in these discussions. There is nothing in these provisions that would convert infringement by sighted people — even if under the pretence of this treaty — magically into lawful acts. And, indeed, there are multifarious ways of infringing copyright without such resort to this treaty. Yet, these very same onerous requirements (such as the "commercial availability" requirement) and bureaucratic processes will unrealistically increase transaction costs for the visually impaired and render infructuous the very purpose of this treaty. Those delegations who are unrelenting on these issues seem to living in a bizarre world where sighted infringers deviously use exceptions granted in an international copyright treaty to engage in piracy; a bizarre world where scanners and the Internet have not been invented. And by refusing to acknowledge these ground realities, they are merely forcing the blind into wearing eye-patches and being 'pirates'.

In particular, I would like to deplore the stand taken by the European Union, being represented here by the European Commission, whose actions run contrary to the call made in May 2011 by the European Parliament to "to address the ‘book famine’ experienced by visually impaired and print-disabled people". This is despite the European Parliament having reminded "the Commission and Member States of their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to take all appropriate measures to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats, and to ensure that laws protecting IPR do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by people with disabilities to cultural materials". The EU, and a few countries of Group B, including the United States, have been slowly bleeding this treaty to death through over-legislation and bureaucracy.

The United States' and EU's stand on technological protection measures, if accepted, would mean that publishers will technologically be able to prevent the blind from enjoying accessible works, even when they can't do so legally on the basis of copyright law. The European Union's stand on all issues has been extraordinarily harmful, and seems to have an aim to make this treaty as unwieldy and unworkable as possible. They seem to regard the Berne Appendix as their model in this regard: an international agreement that exists on paper for the benefit of developing countries, but because of its bureaucratic processes is little used, and is widely regarded as a failure.

Here is what it boils down to: when it comes to the economic rights of copyright owners, current international law insists that there be no formalities, yet when it comes to the human rights of visually impaired person to access information — a right specifically guaranteed to them under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — some delegates in this room wish to ensure as many formalities as possible.

The rights of the visually impaired are being buried under unnecessary and complicated requirements and bureaucratic practices. This injustice must stop: the delegates here have the power to do so. And if the EU does not wish to be viewed as villains by all persons with print disabilities and all persons with conscience, it should stop trying to make this an ineffectual treaty. Many have quipped that this is fast becoming "A Treaty for Rightholders Against Persons with Visual Impairments and Print Disabilities" or alternatively "A Treaty for Morally Impaired Persons and Persons with Ethical Disabilities". That is an international shame.

Having colonized much of the world into using English, French, and Spanish, these European countries along with the USA are now in a position to be both culturally dominant and to refuse to sign up to this treaty if it helps blind persons outside of the EU and the USA who seek access to texts in these languages. These remnants of colonialism must be stamped out.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-eu-blocking-wipo-treaty-for-blind

Primer on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired

pranesh — 2013-06-25T08:47:18Z

In this primer, Pranesh Prakash and Puneeth Nagaraj explain what effects a WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired can have and who's opposing it.

A Primer on the provisions of the TVI and ongoing negotiations

The Treaty on Limitations and Exceptions for Visually Impaired Persons/Persons with Print Disabilities (“TVI” for short) is a landmark international instrument in recognizing the crucial link between copyright limitation and greater access to visually impaired persons / persons with print disabilities (“VIPs” for short). Below is a summary of the provisions of the Treaty and the benefit it will bring to VIPs, and the kinds of speed-bumps that rich countries are trying to place to make this treaty ineffective for the blind, the majority of whom live in poor countries.

1. Exceptions in Domestic Copyright Law

Currently, in most countries, only the owner of copyright to a particular book has the right to convert it into an “accessible format” (e.g. Braille, audio book, DAISY book, etc.). This treaty aims to create an exception to this rule by allowing print disabled persons, their representatives and non-profit ‘authorized entities’ the ability to convert books for the benefit of VIPs without seeking permission. The treaty would leave it up to each country whether their law will require such conversions to be paid or not since there is no uniformity on this question among countries that have national exceptions.

Opposition: The United States, European Union, France, Australia, Canada, and the publishing lobby have asked for multiple conditions for creation of accessible formats. They wish to confine this exception to non-profits, prevent translations, and ensure that books that are “commercially available” can be excluded, and require that countries who wish to use this exception have to comply with an onerous test called the “three step test”. Internationally, rights holders have zero formalities for gaining copyright (which, by international treaty, does not even have to be registered). But the rights holders want to ensure as many bureaucratic hurdles are put to exceptions as possible.

2. Cross-border Transfer of Accessible Works

One of the main purpose main purpose of the TVI is to increase the cross-boundary exchange of copyrighted works in accessible formats. According to the World Health Organisation, 87% of the visually impaired live in underdeveloped countries. Bangladesh and Swaziland, for instance, spend very little money on converting books, while in the USA, millions of dollars are spent both by the government and by charities. If this treaty is passed the way the World Blind Union and other pro-disability NGOs are asking, a blind girl from Bangladesh would be able register with a US-based site like Bookshare.org, after proving she’s blind, and just download the book she needs in a format that is accessible to her.

Opposition: The European Union and United States want make this non-mandatory. They also wish to restrict the ability of the Bangladeshi blind girl from accessing these books by allowing trade only between non-profit ‘authorized entities’. Unfortunately, many developing world countries (like Swaziland) don’t have any authorized entities to speak of, leaving blind people there stranded. For a treaty to be effective, individuals must be granted the right to import books as well. The European Union also wishes for a ‘commercial availability’ clause, meaning that if a book is ‘commercially available’ in the receiving country, then the authorized entity can’t export. In Europe itself there are almost no countries (with the UK being an exception) that have such a requirement when it comes to domestic conversions, but the EU still wants to ensure that as a requirement for poor countries. It is very difficult for an authorized entity located in the USA to determine in each and every case whether an accessible format of the book is ‘commercially available’ in the hundreds of countries they will receive requests from. Importantly, even a book priced exorbitantly or available only for those with expensive iPads may be considered ‘commercially available’, even if it is practically out of reach of the blind in the receiving country. This clause must go if the treaty is to be meaningful.

3. Digital locks

If digital locks (often called “Digital Rights/Restrictions Management” or DRMs) are used, then technologically, the blind can be restricted from enjoying a work which they have a legal right to access. For instance, Amazon has limited — at the behest of the Authors’ Guild of America — the ability of blind people to get their Kindle e-book readers to read aloud a book, and did so using digital locks. The TVI proposes that countries be required to ensure that the blind have effective access to books, even if they have digital locks.

Opposition: The United States and the publishing lobby is the biggest opponent of this provision. They have a system under which the blind are not required to automatically be granted the right to ‘circumvent’ the digital lock to make a book accessible even if they have bought an e-book, but have to granted permission to do so every three years by the government. The most recent three-yearly review found that the blind groups did not make out a strong enough case to justify granting them an exception, but thankfully this determination was overruled by the US Librarian of Congress. Thus the TVI must ensure that publishers cannot technologically impose restrictions on a book for the blind that they can’t do legally.

4. Translation

Another hot-button issue is the right to translation. Given that the biggest exporters of books, due to their colonial legacy, are USA, UK, France, and Spain, it is imperative that the blind in developing countries have access to these books in languages that they can understand. Very unfortunately, most of these languages are not profitable-enough markets for publishers to publish accessible translated books. Given this, it is necessary for charities to be able to make translations of accessible works specifically for the blind.

Opposition: The European Union and the publishing lobby is strongly opposing this, claiming that this will result in the blind having better access than the sighted. This is a false claim. A sighted student might have access to a translated book (made without an exception), but the blind student might not. For this has no merit as it ignores the social consequences of disability. This provision will merely bring the visually impaired to the same level as the rest of the population and not give them some illusory advantage.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/primer-on-tvi

CIS's Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind

pranesh — 2013-07-03T12:01:25Z

Pranesh Prakash read out an abridged version of this statement as his closing remarks in Marrakesh, where the WIPO Treaty for the Blind (the "Marrakesh Treaty") has been successfully concluded. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to facilitate access to published works by blind persons, persons with visual impairment, and other print disabled persons, by requiring mandatory exceptions in copyright law to enable conversions of books into accessible formats, and by enabling cross-border transfer of accessible format books.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am truly humbled to be here today representing the Centre for Internet and Society, an Indian civil society organization. If I may assume the privilege of speaking on behalf of my blind colleagues at CIS who led much of our work on this treaty, and the many blindness organizations we have been working with over the past five years who haven't the means of being here today, I would like to thank you and all the delegates here for this important achievement. And especially, I would like to thank the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International who renewed focus on this issue more than 2 decades after WIPO and UNESCO first called attention to this problem and created a "Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Produced by Copyright".

While doing so, I would like to remember my friend Rahul Cherian — a young, physically impaired lawyer from India — who co-founded Inclusive Planet, was a fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society, and was a legal adviser to the World Blind Union. He worked hard on this treaty for many years, but very unfortunately did not live long enough to see it becoming a reality. His presence here is missed, but I would like to think that by concluding this treaty, all the distinguished delegations here managed to honour his memory and work.

I am grateful to all the distinguished delegations here for successfully concluding a reasonably workable treaty, but especially those — such as Brazil, India, Ecuador, Nigeria, Uruguay, Egypt, South Africa, Switzerland, and numerous others — who realized they were negotiating with blind people's lives, and regarded this treaty as a means of ensuring basic human rights and dignity of the visually impaired and the print disabled, instead of regarding it merely as "copyright flexibility" to be first denied and then grudgingly conceded. The current imbalance in terms of global royalty flows and in terms of the bargaining strength of richer countries within WIPO — many of who strongly opposed the access this treaty seeks to facilitate right till the very end — is for me a stark reminder of colonialism, and I see the conclusion of this treaty as a tiny victory against it.

It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only may be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it must be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare."

When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.

This treaty is an important step in recognizing that exceptions and limitations are as important a part of the international copyright acquis as the granting of rights to copyright holders. This is an important step towards fulfilling the WIPO Development Agenda. This is an important step towards fulfilling the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is an important step towards fulfilling Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 30 of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities, all of which affirm the right of everyone — including the differently-abled — to take part in cultural life of the community.

While this treaty is an important part of overcoming the book famine that the blind have faced, the fact remains that there is far more that needs to be done to bridge the access gap faced by persons with disabilities, including the print disabled.

We need to ensure that globally we tackle societal and economic discrimination against the print disabled, as does the important issue of their education. This treaty is a small but important cog in a much larger wheel through which we hope to achieve justice and equity. And finally, blind people can stop being forced to wear an eye-patch and being pirates to get access to the right to read.

I also thank the WIPO Secretariat, Director General Francis Gurry, Ambassador Trevor Clark, Michelle Woods, and the WIPO staff for pushing transparency and inclusiveness of civil society organizations in these deliberations, in stark contrast to the way many bilateral and plurilateral treaties such as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the India-EU Free Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have been, and are being, conducted. I hope we see even more transparency, and especially non-governmental participation in this area in the future.

I call upon all countries, and especially book-exporting countries like the USA, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain to ratify this treaty immediately, and would encourage various rightholders organizations, and the MPAA who have in the past campaigned against this treaty and now welcome this treaty, to show their support for it by publicly working to get all countries to ratify this treaty and letting us all know about it.

I congratulate you all for the "Miracle of Marrakesh", which shows, as my late colleague Rahul Cherian said, "when people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind

India's Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind

pranesh — 2013-07-03T11:42:17Z

This was the statement that the Government of India made at the closing of the WIPO Diplomatic Conference to Conclude a Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities (17-28 June 2013), after the Marrakesh Treaty (the "Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for the Blind, Visually Impaired and otherwise Print Disabled") was adopted.

Mr. President,

Flexibility is the life force in conducting any work and without this no progress happens in the work. It is the presence of flexibility which gave life to the negotiation work undertaken by the member states during this Diplomatic Conference. We salute this flexibility which brought smiles on the faces of millions of blind and visually impaired persons.

Today the member states attending the WIPO Diplomatic Conference have created history by adopting the Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for the Blind, Visually Impaired and otherwise Print Disabled. The treaty promotes sharing of books in any accessible format for the blind or visually impaired, and is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has more than 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.

Considering the importance of access to knowledge, especially to blind persons, the Indian Parliament approved amendments to India’s copyright law which includes very robust exceptions for the physically-disabled persons, which are disability-neutral and works-neutral. We are happy that member states have the flexibility to continue with their national laws after joining this treaty. This treaty removes barriers to access, recognises the right to read, establishes equal opportunities and rights for blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled persons who are marginalised due to lack of access to published works. We are happy to note that this treaty strikes an appropriate balance between copyright and exceptions and limitations to it.

The Indian delegation would like to thank you for your able leadership and guidance in directing all the member states to achieve the objectives of this Diplomatic Conference. We would like to congratulate and appreciate Mr. Francis Gurry, Director General of WIPO, for his able leadership and initiatives taken by him for the successful completion of this Diplomatic Conference. We also congratulate Amb. Trevor Clarke, Assistant Director General, the chairpersons of the Main Committees, Drafting Committees, Credentials Committee and the informal groups for their significant contributions. We also would like to congratulate all the member states, WBU members and millions of visually impaired persons all over the world in this regard. We would like to remember the significant and valuable contribution of the late Mr. Rahul Cherian of Inclusive Planet, an accredited NGO of WIPO, who passed away recently.

The Indian delegation believes that member states will take special interest in ratifying this treaty which is the first step towards implementation of this treaty. Further, we believe that contracts should not create problems for cross-border exchange of accessible format copies and we hope that member states will take appropriate and effective measures in implementing the objectives of this treaty. We also understand that the provisions of this treaty will facilitate translation of content in the accessible format copies in the language beneficiary persons speak and read. We also believe that this treaty will strengthen the international copyright system.

Marrakesh which has given WTO/TRIPS agreement in 1994, has indeed proved lucky again for us by giving an important multilateral treaty for blind people. The Marrakesh spirit has set an unprecedented example in solving the problems in the international norm setting and it reinforces our confidence in the WIPO's significant role in managing and implementing the international copyright system. We would like to thank all the individuals who have contributed to this treaty and made it happen by showing flexibility in negotiation, and the WIPO secretariat for their secretarial work. The Indian delegation would like to thank the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for the excellent arrangements made for organising this conference and the hospitality shown to us.

We are happy to celebrate and see that the treaty has finally took the form of a beautiful butterfly which is liked by one and all.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind

Copyrights and Copywrongs Why the Government Should Embrace the Public Domain

pranesh — 2013-09-06T04:56:42Z

Each of you reading this article is a criminal and should be jailed for up to three years. Yes, you. "Why?," you may ask.

This article by Pranesh Prakash was published in Yojana, Issue: August 2013.

Have you ever whistled a tune or sung a film song aloud? Have you ever retold a joke? Have you replied to an e-mail without deleting the copy of that e-mail that automatically added to the reply? Or photocopied pages from a book? Have you ever used an image from the Internet in presentation? Have you ever surfed the Internet at work, used the the 'share' button on a website, or retweeted anything on Twitter? And before 2012, did you ever use a search engine?

If you have done any of the above without the permission of the copyright holder, you might well have been in violation of the Indian Copyright Act, since in each of those examples you're creating a copy or are otherwise infringing the rights of the copyright holder. Interestingly, it was only through an amendment in 2012 that search engines (like Google and Yahoo) were legalized.

Traditional Justifications for Copyright

Copyright is one among the many forms of intellectual property rights. Across differing theories of copyright, two broad categories may be made. The first category would be those countries where copyright is intended to benefit society, the other where it is intended to benefit the author. Within the second category, there can again be two subcategories: those that see the need to benefit the author due to notions of natural justice and those that see the need to provide incentives for authors to create. Incentives to create are necessary only when the act of creation itself is valuable (and more so than the creator). The act of creation is valued highly as it directly benefits society. Thus, it is seen that the second sub-category is closer to the societal benefit theory than the natural justice sub-category. In the United States, the wording of the Progress Clause makes things clear that copyright is for the benefit of the public, and the author is only given secondary consideration. It is in light of this that the U.S. Supreme Court said,
"The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired."

Economic theories of copyright see copyright as an incentive mechanism, designed to encourage creators to produce material because they would be able to recover costs and make a profit due to the exclusionary rights that copyright law grants. Thus, the ideal period of copyright for any material, under the economic theory would be the minimum period required for a person to recoup the costs that go into the production of that material. Allowing for the great-grandchildren of the author to benefit from the author’s work would actually go against the incentive mechanism. Even if the author is motivated enough to put in even more hard work to provide for her great-grandchildren, her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren wouldn’t have any incentive to create for themselves (as the incentive is seen purely in terms of economics, and not in terms of creative urge, etc.), as they are already provided for by copyright. Thus, in a sense, the shift towards longer periods of copyright terms that we are seeing today can be seen as a shift from the incentive-based model to a rewards-based model of copyright.

The other standard theory of copyright justification is the natural rights theory, which deems intellectual property the fruit of the author’s labour, thus entitling them to complete control over that fruit. This brings us to the conception of property itself, and the Lockean and Hegelian justifications for personal property is what is most often used to back such an argument up.

There are many problems with the natural rights theory of intellectual property. If that theory were to hold water, copyright law would accord greater precedence to authors than to publishers. Yet, we see that it is publishers primarily, and not authors, who get benefit of copyright. The "work for hire" doctrine, embodied in Section 17 of the Copyright Act, holds that it is the employer who is treated as the owner of copyright, not the author. This plainly contradicts that natural rights theory. And it also raises the question of why we should protect certain kinds of knowledge investments in the first place. Publishing is a business, and all risks inherent with other businesses should come along with publishing. There is no reason that the State should safeguard their investment by vesting in them a right while safeguarding the investments of any other business only occasionally, and that too as an act of munificence. This problem arises because of the free transferability of copyright. This leads us to the larger problem, which is of course that of treating knowledge as a form of property. Property, as we have traditionally understood it, has a few features like excludability. Knowledge, however, does not share that feature with property. Once you know something that I created, I can’t exclude you from that knowledge that (unlike my ability to take back an apple you have stolen from me). This analysis also has the pernicious effect of excluding free speech analysis of copyright laws. An incorrect analogy is often drawn to explain why free speech analysis doesn’t work on property: you may wish to exercise your right to free speech on my front lawn, yet the State may decree that I am in full right to throw you off my property, without being accused of abridging your right to freedom of speech. So, the argument goes, enforcement of property rights is not an affront to freedom of speech. The problems with this analogy are obvious enough: the two forms of “property” cannot be equated. If you take the location of speech away, I can still speak. If, on the other hand, you restrict my ideas/expression, then I can no longer be said to have the freedom of expression.

One Size Doesn't Fit All

It is easy to see that copyright is an ill-fit for all the things that it now covers. Copyright in its present form is a historical accident, which evolved into the state it is in a very haphazard fashion. It is a colonial imposition on developing countries. It does not value that which we often value in Indian culture: tradition. Instead, copyright law values modernity and newness. It can also be seen as a trade issue imposed on us through the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS Agreements) as part of the World Trade Organization.

Importantly, copyright is not a single well-planned scheme. In some cases — for literature, visual art works, lyrics, musical tunes, etc. — it provides rights to the artist, while in other cases — for recordings of those musical tunes, and for films — it provides rights to the producers. What are the legal reasons for this distinction? There aren't any; the distinction is a historical one (with sound recordings and films getting copyright protection after literature, etc.). At one point of time only exact copies were governed by copyright law. Hence, translations of a work were considered not to be infringement of that work (or a "derivative work"), but new independent works, since after all it takes considerable artistic effort to create a good translation of a work. However now even creating an encyclopedia based on Harry Potter (as the Harry Potter Lexicon was), is covered as infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. At one point of time photographs were not provided any copyright, being as they are, 'mere' mechanical reproductions. They were seen as not being 'creative' enough. However, around the turn of the twentieth century, that position changed, and hence every photograph you've taken of your dog is now copyrighted. According to a recent Supreme Court decision, merely adding paragraph numbering to court judgments is considered to be 'creative' enough to merit copyright protection! At one point of time, copyright existed for 14 years. Now, with the international minimum being "fifty years after the death of the author", it lasts for an average of more than a century! Once upon a time, copyright was only granted to those who wanted it and applied for it. That has now changed, and you have copyright over every single original thing that you have ever written, recorded, or otherwise affixed to a medium.

Copyright in the Digital Era

All digital activities violate copyright, since automatically copies are created on the computer's RAM, cache, etc. Because now everything is copyrighted, and copyrighted seemingly forever, each one of us violates copyright on a day-to-day basis. It is a mockery of the law when everyone is a criminal. The US President Barack Obama violated copyright law when he presented UK's Queen Elizabeth II an iPod filled with 40 songs from popular musicals like West Side Story and the King and I. When even presidents, with legal advisers cannot navigate copyright law successfully, what hopes have we ordinary people?

There is no shortage of similar examples to show that copyright law has gone out of control.

Take extradition, for instance. Augusto Pinochet was extradited, Charles Shobraj was sought to be extradited. Added to their ranks is the pimply teenager who runs TVShark, who British courts have cleared for extradition to the USA for potential violation of copyright law. The extreme injustice of copyright is easily observable if one sees the contorted map depicting net royalty inflows available on Worldmapper.org: there are a sum total of less than a dozen countries which are net exporters of IP; all other countries, including India, are net importers of IP. IP law is one area where both those who talk about social justice and those who talk about individual liberties find common ground in the monopolistic or exclusionary rights granted under copyright law. Copyright acts as a barrier to free trade, thus allowing Nelson Mandela's autobiography to be more expensive in South Africa than the United Kingdom because South Africa is prohibited by the UK publisher from importing the book from India. Mark Getty, the heir to the Getty Images fortune, once presciently observed that "IP is the oil of the 21st century".

Government Copyright

In the ivory towers of academia, there has in recent times been a clarion call that's resounding strongly: the call for open access. As the Public Library of Science states, "open access is a stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse". Why is it important? "Most publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles must pay to access them. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publisher and is often required to pay an additional fee. Although many researchers can access the journals they need via their institution and think that their access is free, in reality it is not. The institution has often been involved in lengthy negotiations around the price of their site license, and re-use of this content is limited." Importantly, the writers of articles (scholars) do not get paid by the publishers for their articles, and most developing countries are not able to afford the costs imposed by these scholarly publishers. Even India's premier scientific research agency, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, recently declared that the costs of scientific journals was beyond its means.

Why is this important? Because apart from establishing the idea of informational equity and justice, it also establishes the idea that taxpayer-funded research (as most scientific and much of academic research is) ought to belong to the public domain, and be available freely. This principle, seemingly uncontroversial, is very unfortunately not embodied in the Indian Copyright Act. Most public servants do not realize that that which they create may not be freely used by the public whom they serve.

Under the Indian Copyright Act, all creations of the government, whether by the executive, judiciary, or legislature, is by default copyrighted. This does not make sense under either of the two theories of copyright that we examined above. The government is not an 'author' who can have any form of 'natural rights' over its labour. Nor is the government incentivised to create more works if it has copyright over them. Most of the copyrighted works, such as various reports, the Gazette of India, etc., that the government creates are required to be created, and the cultural works it creates are for cultural promotion and not for commercial exploitation. Hence it makes absolutely no sense to continue with the colonial regime of 'crown copyright', when countries like the USA have suffered no ill effects by legally placing all government works in the public domain.

While there are a limited set of exceptions to government copyright provided for in the law, those are very minimal. This means that even though you are legally allowed to get a document through the Right to Information Act, publicising that document on the Internet could potentially get you jailed under the Copyright Act. This is obviously not what any government official would want. If instead of the four sub-sections that form the exception, the exception was merely one line and allowed for "the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work", then that itself would elegantly take care of the problem. This would also remove the ambiguities inherent currently in the Data.gov.in, where the central government is publishing information that it wants civil society, entrepreneurs, and other government departments to use, however there is no clarity on whether they are legally allowed to do so.

Recently, the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization passed a treaty that would facilitate blind persons' access to books. On that occasion, at Marrakesh, I noted that intellectual property must not be seen as a good in itself, but as an instrumentalist tool which may be selectively deployed to achieve societally desirable objectives. I said: It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only may be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it must be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare." When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.

The Indian government needs to similarly redeem itself by freeing governmental works, including the scientific research it funds, the archives of All India Radio, the movies that it produces through Prasar Bharati, and all other tax-payer funded works, and by returning them to the public domain, where they belong.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/yojana-august-2013-pranesh-prakash-copyrights-and-copywrongs-why-the-govt-should-embrace-the-public-domain

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 2: Gobind and the Compelling State Interest Test

pranesh — 2014-01-27T18:03:38Z

Gautam Bhatia analyses the first case in which the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy, Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and argues that the holding in that case adopted the three-pronged American test of strict scrutiny, compelling State interest, and narrow tailoring in its approach to privacy violations.

After its judgment in Kharak Singh, the Court was not concerned with the privacy question for a while. The next case that dealt – peripherally – with the issue came eleven years later. In R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra, the Court held that attaching a recording device to a person’s telephone did not violate S. 25 of the Telegraph Act, because

"where a person talking on the telephone allows another person to record it or to hear it, it can-not be said that the other person who is allowed to do so is damaging, removing, tampering, touching machinery battery line or post for intercepting or acquainting himself with the contents of any message. There was no element of coercion or compulsion in attaching the tape recorder to the telephone."

Although this case was primarily about the admissibility of evidence, the Court also took time out to consider – and reject – a privacy-based Article 21 argument, holding that:

"Article 21 was invoked by submitting that the privacy of the appellant’s conversation was invaded. Article 21 contemplates procedure established by law with regard to deprivation of life or personal liberty. The telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or high handed interference by tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants. It must not be understood that the Courts will tolerate safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be imperiled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular methods."

Apart from the fact that it joined Kharak Singh in refusing to expressly find a privacy right within the contours of Article 21, there is something else that unites Kharak Singh and R.M. Malkani: they hypothetical in Kharak Singh became a reality in Malkani – what saved the telephone tapping precisely because it was directed at "… a guilty person", with the Court specifically holding that the laws were not for targeting innocent people. Once again, then, the targeted and specific nature of interception became a crucial – and in this case, a decisive – factor. One year later, in another search and seizure case, Pooran Mal v Inspector, the Court cited M.P. Sharma and stuck to its guns, refusing to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into Indian Constitutional law.

It is Gobind v State of MP, decided in 1975, that marks the watershed moment for Indian privacy law in the Constitution. Like Kharak Singh, Gobind also involved domiciliary visits to the house of a history-sheeter. Unlike Kharak Singh, however, in Gobind the Court found that the Regulations did have statutory backing – S. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, which allowed State Government to make notifications giving effect to the provisions of the Act, one of which was the prevention of commission of offences. The surveillance provisions in the impugned regulations, according to the Court, were indeed for the purpose of preventing offences, since they were specifically aimed at repeat offenders. To that extent, then, the Court found that there existed a valid “law” for the purposes of Articles 19 and 21.

By this time, of course, American constitutional law had moved forward significantly from eleven years ago, when Kharak Singh had been decided. The Court was able to invoke Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade, both of which had found a "privacy" as an "interstitial" or "penumbral" right in the American Constitution – that is, not reducible to any one provision, but implicit in a number of separate provisions taken together. The Court ran together a number of American authorities, referred to Locke and Kant, to dignity, to liberty and to autonomy, and ended by holding, somewhat confusingly:

“the right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. This catalogue approach to the question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical picture of that distinctive characteristics of the right of privacy. Perhaps, the only suggestion that can be offered as unifying principle underlying the concept has been the assertion that a claimed right must be a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty… there are two possible theories for protecting privacy of home. The first is that activities in the home harm others only to the extent that they cause offence resulting from the mere thought that individuals might he engaging in such activities and that such ‘harm’ is not Constitutionally protective by the state. The second is that individuals need a place of sanctuary where they can be free from societal control. The importance of such a sanctuary is that individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting on the world the image they want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the values of their peers rather than the realities of their natures… the right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development."

But if no clear principle emerges out of the Court’s elucidation of the right, it was fairly unambiguous in stressing the importance of the right itself. Interestingly, it grounded the right within the context of the freedom struggle. "Our founding fathers," it observed, "were thoroughly opposed to a Police Raj even as our history of the struggle for freedom has borne eloquent testimony to it." (Para 30) The parallels to the American Fourth Amendment are striking here: in his historical analysis Akhil Amar tells us that the Fourth Amendment was meant precisely to avoid the various abuses of unreasonable searches and seizures that were common in England at the time.

The parallels with the United States become even more pronounced, however, when the Court examined the grounds for limiting the right to privacy. "Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest." "Compelling public interest" is an interesting phrase, for two reasons. First, “public interest” is a ground for fundamental rights restrictions under Article 19 (see, e.g., Article 19(6)), but the text of the Article 19 restrictions do not use – and the Court, in interpreting them, has not held – that the public interest must be “compelling”. This suggests a stricter standard of review for an Article 21 privacy right violation than Article 19 violations. This is buttressed by the fact that in the same paragraph, the Court ended by observing: “even if it be assumed that Article 19(5) [restrictions upon the freedom of movement] does not apply in terms, as the right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute, a law imposing reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State must be upheld as valid.” The Court echoes the language of 19(5), and adds the word “compelling”. This surely cannot be an oversight.

More importantly – the compelling State interest is an American test, used often in equal protection cases and cases of discrimination, where “suspect classes” (such as race) are at issue. Because of the importance of the right at issue, the compelling state interest test goes hand-in-hand with another test: narrow tailoring. Narrow tailoring places a burden upon the State to demonstrate that its restriction is tailored in a manner that infringes the right as narrowest manner that is possible to achieve its goals. The statement of the rule may be found in the American Supreme Court case of Grutter v Bollinger:

"Even in the limited circumstance when drawing racial distinctions is permissible to further a compelling state interest, government is still constrained under equal protection clause in how it may pursue that end: the means chosen to accomplish the government’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose."

To take an extremely trivial example that will illustrate the point: the State wants to ban hate speech against Dalits. It passes legislation that bans “all speech that disrespects Dalits.” This is not narrowly tailored, because while all hate speech against Dalits necessarily disrespects them, all speech that disrespects Dalits is not necessarily hate speech. It was possible for the government to pass legislation banning only hate speech against Dalits, one that would have infringed upon free speech more narrowly than the “disrespect law”, and still achieved its goals. The law is not narrowly tailored.

Crucially, then, the Court in Gobind seemed to implicitly accept the narrow-tailoring flip side of the compelling state interest coin. On the constitutionality of the Police Regulations itself, it upheld their constitutionality by reading them narrowly. Here is what the Court said:

“Regulation 855, in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable materials exist to induce the opinion that they show a determination, to lead a life of crime – crime in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperiling safety of society cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance under this Regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer.”

But Regulation 855 did not refer to the gravity of the crime at all. Thus, the Court was able to uphold its constitutionality only by narrowing its scope in a manner that the State’s objective of securing public safety was met in a way that minimally infringed the right to privacy.

Therefore, whether the Gobind bench was aware of it or not, its holding incorporates into Indian constitutional law and the right to privacy, not just the compelling State interest test, but narrow tailoring as well. The implications for the CMS are obvious. Because with narrow tailoring, the State must demonstrate that bulk surveillance of all individuals, whether guilty or innocent, suspected of crimes or not suspected of crimes (whether reasonably or otherwise), possessing a past criminal record or not, speaking to each other of breaking up the government or breaking up a relationship – every bit of data must be collected to achieve the goal of maintaining public security, and that nothing narrower will suffice. Can the State demonstrate this? I do not think it can, but at the very least, it should be made to do so in open Court.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-2

World Narrow Web

pranesh — 2012-03-27T16:00:24Z

Censorship and how govt reacts to it may push us to country-specific networks, writes Pranesh Prakash in an article published in the Indian Express on 4 February 2012.

Twitter, a popular micro-blogging service, recently announced that “[today] we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world”. In a move a few weeks ago, Blogger, Google’s blogging service, in effect announced something similar, by saying that default they would redirect Blogger users trying to get to Blogspot.com addresses (like http://example.blogspot.com) to their respective country sites (like http://example.blogspot.in). Twitter’s announcement was greeted with much disapproval by many Twitter users, as a move towards censorship, with some talking (on Twitter) about a boycott. Blogger’s move was hidden away, deep within a help page, and is being noticed now, and is causing quite a stir as caving in to censorship. Are these concerns justified? Before answering that question, let’s look at what the platforms’ announcements really say.

Twitter has given itself the ability to withhold specific tweets and users in particular countries where that content is legally required to be removed (generally with a court order). Their earlier option, they inform us, was to block the offending tweets and users in all countries. Apart from this, they will publish a notice for each tweet/ user that is blocked in a country. They will also be proactively publishing every removal request they receive at ChillingEffects.org, which allows us to hold them to account and question their decision to remove tweets.

Google, by redirecting you to the country-specific Blogger, is allowing for country-level removal of both blogs and individual blog posts. However, they also note that you can circumvent this by using a special “no redirect” address. Google currently forwards all search-related removals, but does not do so for Blogger-related requests, and all copyright-related complaints to ChillingEffects.org. Google does publish aggregate data relating to censorship of Blogger, on which free-speech advocates have been asking them to provide more granular information.

There are three problems. First, while Twitter was just as open to repressive governments’ requests last week, by making this change, they are advertising this fact to such governments. Thailand has noted it, and has congratulated Twitter.

Second, as Rob Beschizza, managing editor of the website Boing Boing, pointed out, there have been no instances of political content having been removed by Twitter. Even British courts’ super-injunctions (injunctions on speech, that prevent you from mentioning the fact that there is an injunction) were defeated by Twitter users, which only showed that attempts to censor material results in even more attention being drawn to it (which is popularly known as the “Streisand Effect”). So, does this now mean that Twitter will start applying local laws to judge “valid and applicable legal requests”, instead of American laws? What if the law is as bad as that which exists in India, where they are required to remove content within 36 hours based on any affected person’s complaint — without a court order? Will they still act on it? If they don’t, will the government or courts order Twitter.com to be blocked in India, finding it liable for illegal omissions?

Third, this trend points increasingly to the fact that we are witnessing a Balkanisation of the Web as more countries start asserting their sovereignty online. As Chinese dissident journalist Michael Anti pointed out recently, it seems we now need visas (read “circumvention techniques”) to visit the international Web. But even then, there is no longer a singular “international” Web, but an Indian Web and a Guatemalan Web, and an Angolan Web. And the government’s recent proposal of requiring companies to locate their servers in India is a move towards this (apart from being a move towards killing cloud computing).

That having been said, the reality is that the CEOs of Google, Google India, and Microsoft have been summoned to appear in Indian courts for allowing their users to publish material which they don’t know about, which is in a sealed envelope (and most of the accused companies haven’t been shown yet), and which they weren’t even asked once to remove.

The Intermediary Guidelines Rules passed by the Department of Information Technology in April 2011 do not require the user, whose content it is, to be told that there is a complaint, nor to be given a chance to defend themselves. It does not even require public notice that the content has been removed.

The truth is, the transparency around censorship that Google and Twitter are providing is far better than what most other companies are providing. For instance, Big Rock, an Indian DNS provider, suspended the CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com web address on the basis of a seemingly not legal request by the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Crime Branch, and did so without any public notice and without even informing the cartoonist whose web address it was. At least Google and Twitter are pushing back against non-legal requests, and refusing to remove content that doesn’t violate local laws. Single-mindedly criticising them will only put off other companies from following in their footsteps.

Instead of criticising those who are actually working towards transparency in censorship, we should encourage them and others, push intermediaries not to cave in to unreasonable censorship requests, prevent them from over-censoring on their own, and push hard for the government to incorporate their best practices as part of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules.

The original article was published in the Indian Express

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web

India's Opening Statement on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-23T15:24:26Z

This was the opening statement of the Indian delegation, delivered by G.R. Raghavender, on Thursday, July 19, 2012, at the 24th meeting of the SCCR at WIPO in Geneva. The statement called upon all countries to conclude textual work on the treaty and call for a Diplomatic Conference to finalize it. This statement received applause, which is highly unusual at the SCCR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Indian delegation is a little bit disappointed about the way we have started this topic of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence in your abilities, but unfortunately we have already lost one hour in this afternoon session. We have only two hours left, unless and until we decide to work beyond 6:00 P.M.

We have a document, SCCR/23/7, on the table. Everybody has this document. We all decided in the last SCCR that we will work on this document and move towards a meaningful treaty. We said, in this very 24th SCCR, we will be ready for that. We should have started article-by-article discussions by now. And as we are involved in the general statements in our agenda, I can go on reading a statement for another 20 minutes as I have about five pages written out. But given our support for the treaty, I won't.

I'm sorry, I respect all the distinguished delegations: they have their own concerns, but Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we should have started article-by-article discussions by now. Yesterday, in the evening at the Chairman plus group leaders plus 3, we all requested that. Whatever happened during the 14, 15 intersessional meetings, we have no objection to that, but people raise the issue of transparency and availability of the document. Whatever changes have been made to the document must be public. If no one is ready to post that document either during the informal discussions, or here in the plenary, they can always come out with the changes made to particular articles, or para in the preamble, when the discussion starts.

We should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty. We are even open to working on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.

If we don't finalize in this SCCR, we cannot go to the General Assembly in the first week of the month of October. If we lose that time, we will have to wait until the next General Assembly, because we cannot have a General Assembly in between.

So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR, waiting for the next General Assembly.

So kindly guide us to start text-based article-by-article discussions, so that we won't go back empty-handed. The Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi

Transcripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-31T12:35:43Z

We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012.

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:

WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report

pranesh — 2012-08-16T10:23:36Z

Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012. The report was published on the A2K Network website.

Summary

India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist. India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist.

It is unfortunate that the larger public interest in copyright-related issues are never foregrounded in India. For instance, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings without calling a single consumer rights organization, and without seeking any civil society engagement, except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations, including consumer rights organizations, sending in a written submission to the Standing Committee.

This lopsidedness in terms of policy influence is resulting in greater imbalance in the law, as evidenced by the government's capitulation to a handful of influential multinational book publishers on the question of allowing parallel importation of copyrighted works. Furthermore, pressure from the United States and the European Union, in the form of the Special 301 report and the India-EU free trade agreement that is being negotiated are leading to numerous negative changes being introduced into Indian law, despite us not having any legal obligation under any treaties. Such influence only works in one direction: to increase the rights granted to rightsholders, and has so far never included any increase in user rights.

It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Visually impaired persons, for instance, have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works.

Source URL: http://bit.ly/QEJf5l
Click to download the report [PDF, 201 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012

CIS's Comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

pranesh — 2016-01-29T15:17:48Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) gave its comments on the failures of the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal as well as the processes that it has followed.

We from the Centre for Internet and Society wishes to express our dismay at the consistent way in which CCWG-Accountability has completely failed to take critical inputs from organizations like ours (and others, some instances of which have been highlighted in Richard Hill’s submission) into account, and has failed to even capture our concerns and misgivings about the process — as expressed in our submission to the CCWG-Accountability’s 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations — in any document prepared by the CCWG. We cannot support the proposal in its current form.

Time for Comments

We believe firstly that the 21 day comment period itself was too short and is going to result effectively in many groups or categories of people from not being able to meaningfully participate in the process, which flies in the face of the values that ICANN claims to uphold. This extremely short period amounts to procedural unsoundness, and restrains educated discussion on the way forward, especially given that the draft has altered quite drastically in the aftermath to ICANN55.

Capture of ICANN and CCWG Process

The participation in the accountability-cross-community mailing list clearly shows that the process is dominated by developed countries (of the top 30 non-staff posters to the list, 26 were from the ‘WEOG’ UN grouping, with 14 being from the USA, with only 1 from Asia Pacific, 2 from Africa, and 1 from Latin America), by males (27 of the 30 non-staff posters), and by industry/commercial interests (17 of the top 30 non-staff posters). If this isn’t “capture”, what is? There is no stress test that overcomes this reality of capture of ICANN by Western industry interests. The global community is only nominally multistakeholder, while actually being grossly under-representative of the developing nations, women and minority genders, and communities that are not business communities or technical communities. For instance, of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa.

Culling statistics from the accountability-cross-community mailing list, we find that of the top 30 posters (excluding ICANN staff):

57% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, from a single country: the United States of America.
87% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, participants from countries which are part of the WEOG UN grouping (which includes Western Europe, US, Canada, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand), which only has developed countries. None of those who participated substantively were from the EEC (Eastern European) group and only 1 was from Asia-Pacific and only 1 was from GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean Group).
90% were male and 3 were female, as far as one could ascertain from public records.
57% were identifiable as primarily being from industry or the technical community, as far as one could ascertain from public records, with only 2 (7%) being readily identifiable as representing governments.

This lack of global multistakeholder representation greatly damages the credibility of the entire process, since it gains its legitimacy by claiming to represent the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Bogey of Governmental Capture

With respect to Stress Test 18, dealing with the GAC, the report proposes that the ICANN Bylaws, specifically Article XI, Section 2, be amended to create a provision where if two-thirds of the Board so votes, they can reject a full GAC consensus advice. This amendment is not connected to the fear of government capture or the fear that ICANN will become a government-led body; given that the advice given by the GAC is non-binding that is not a possibility. Given the state of affairs described in the submission made above, it is clear that for much of the world, their governments are the only way in which they can effectively engage within the ICANN ecosystem. Therefore, nullifying the effectiveness of GAC advice is harmful to the interests of fostering a multistakeholder ecosystem, and contributes to the strengthening of the kind of industry capture described above.

Jurisdiction

All discussions on the Sole Designator Model seem predicated on the unflinching certainty of ICANN’s jurisdiction continuing to remain in California, as the legal basis of that model is drawn from Californian corporate law. To quote the draft report itself, in Annexe 12, it is stated that:

"Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN’s accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN today operates under the legislation of the U.S. state of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the CCWG-Accountability. ICANN is a public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction has been placed within the mandate of WS2, to be dealt with post the transition. However, there is no analysis in the 3rd Draft on how the Sole Designator Model would continue to be upheld if future Work Stream 2 discussions led to a consensus that there needed to be a shift in the jurisdiction of ICANN. In the event that ICANN shifts to, say, Delaware or Geneva, would there be a basis to the Sole Designator Model in the law? Therefore this is an issue that needs to be addressed before this model is adopted, else there is a risk of either this model being rendered infructuous in the future, or this model foreclosing open debate and discussion in Work Stream 2.

Right of Inspection

We strongly support the incorporation of the rights of Inspection under this model as per Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code as a fundamental bylaw. As there is a severe gap between the claims that ICANN raises about its own transparency and the actual amount of transparency that it upholds, we opine that the right of inspection needs to be provided to each member of the ICANN community.

Timeline for WS2 Reforms

We support the CCWG’s commitment to the review of the DIDP Process, which they have committed to enhancing in WS2. Our research on this matter indicates that ICANN has in practice been able to deflect most requests for information. It regularly utilised its internal processes and discussions with stakeholders clauses, as well as clauses on protecting financial interests of third parties (over 50% of the total non-disclosure clauses ever invoked - see chart below) to do away with having to provide information on pertinent matters such as its compliance audits and reports of abuse to registrars. We believe that even if ICANN is a private entity legally, and not at the same level as a state, it nonetheless plays the role of regulating an enormous public good, namely the Internet. Therefore, there is a great onus on ICANN to be far more open about the information that they provide. Finally, it is extremely disturbing that they have extended full disclosure to only 12% of the requests that they receive. An astonishing 88% of the requests have been denied, partly or otherwise. See "Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II)".

In the present format, there has been little analysis on the timeline of WS2; the report itself merely states that:

"The CCWG-Accountability expects to begin refining the scope of Work Stream 2 during the upcoming ICANN 55 Meeting in March 2016. It is intended that Work Stream 2 will be completed by the end of 2016."

Without further clarity and specification of the WS2 timeline, meaningful reform cannot be initiated. Therefore we urge the CCWG to come up with a clear timeline for transparency processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ciss-comments-on-the-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen

pranesh — 2012-01-04T08:59:14Z

The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.

Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression

The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.

Intermediary Guidelines Rules

In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies

We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.

Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors

Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.

'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship

Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.

Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act

Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.

The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship

Open Government Data

pranesh — 2012-07-16T12:42:33Z

The Transparency & Accountability Initiative published a book titled “Opening Government: A Guide to Best Practice in Transparency, Accountability and Civic Engagement across the Public Sector”. The Centre for Internet & Society contributed a chapter on Open Government Data.

Openness in relation to information on governmental functioning is a crucial component of democratic governance. There are few things more abhorrent to democracies than a lack of transparency in their functioning, and secrecy in public affairs is generally a sign of autocratic rule. Such transparency is the foundation for the seeking of accountability from those who exercise power over public policy issues and governmental functioning, including not only governments but also large corporations, trade unions, civil society organisations (CSOs), funding agencies and special interest groups. This information would also include all information on private bodies that can be accessed by public authorities.

Transparency helps citizens to independently evaluate governmental functioning and thus hold accountable any instances of corruption or mismanagement, whether at the level of policy formulation or at the level of implementation. Thus, the freedom of speech and expression and the right to receive information, which are seen as two sides of the same right under most international covenants, are both vitally important in ensuring transparent and accountable governance.

Making public information that is produced by the government is slightly different from merely making public information on governmental functioning. While many instances of the former are subsumed within the latter (e.g. information collected by the government), there are also areas where the two categories do not overlap. Openness with respect to government-produced information is part of the right of the public to access any output of taxpayer funding. Thus the category of ‘governmental information’ or ‘governmental data’ can be taken to include information about the government and governmental functioning, as well as information collected and produced by the government.

In addition, there can be two related but independent grounds on which the right of the public to governmental information is often founded. The ‘open government data’ movement – it is now a demand cutting across multiple nations and deserves to be so called – is predicated upon there being a certain degree of transparency in public functioning, notably through the existence of ‘right to information’ or ‘freedom of information’ statutes. Specifically, the open data movement generally understands the public’s right to information to include (1) the proactive disclosure of information; (2) the internet being the primary medium for such disclosure; (3) information being made available for access and for re-use free of charge and; (4) information being made available in a machine-readable format to enable computer-based re-use.

As it would be meaningless to demand the additional components that go to make ‘open government data’ in an environment where the basic right to information does not exist, all recommendations here (including initial steps) presume that such a right exists.

Initial steps

Goal
A commitment by the government to provide proactive disclosure of existing digital data on the web.

Justification
Most governments already rely on computers at least for information storage at most levels even if they often perform information processing and sharing (i.e. conduct governmental transactions whether government-government, government business, or government-civil society) offline. This information that already exists in a digital form – quite often in the form of text documents and spread sheets – can and should be made public, based on a narrow negative blacklist. This blacklist should have a list of categories of information that should not be made available because of a narrow set of concerns such as privacy and properly classified state secrets. While this will undoubtedly result in the haphazard release of files that may be difficult to comprehend or use effectively, this is not a reason for keeping data offline and out of public reach. Once a process has been initiated of continually putting data up online, the data and the process can themselves be bettered through more elaborate technological and process-related improvements. Proactive disclosure steps can and should be taken even without the implementation of a robust procedural back-end
for information gathering, processing and sharing along with the technology that enables it. While such robust information architecture and back-end infrastructure is certainly desirable, it is not necessary for the immediate online release of files that are already in digital format.

Recommendations

The government should create a minimal front-facing infrastructure, in terms of both technology (namely, a website) and human resources (people who are tasked with the responsibility of uploading governmental records, documents, reports and other information).
A negative list of information that may not be shared should be drawn up by each public authority so that all other material can be made publicly available immediately, keeping in mind the more general guidelines that exist in national and sub-national policies and laws on the right to information.
A timeline should be put in place to ensure that proactive disclosure of existing government information continues to happen on a regular basis, until more rigorous steps are taken towards open government data.

More substantial steps

Goal
All government data is made available, in a form that ensures ease of use and reuse.

Justification
Making government data available online is just the first basic step. All information released requires a proper underpinning in informational policy and technological support to realise full transparency, citizen participation and full social and economic value. Governments should use smarter technologies to ensure that the policy commitment to open government data can be realised in practice. In particular, searchability in the system greatly helps to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities. Such searchability is often easy when it comes to text, but ends up being more complicated in other areas. For this reason, some of the suggestions on this have been kept for the next section (on proposals for most ambitious steps).

Recommendations

Policy and process

An information policy should be formulated that deals comprehensively with best practices with regard to information collection, storage, retrieval and management at the national level, and that allows for the adoption of that policy either with modification or directly by sub-national governments.
- Part of this policy must ensure that most new information is either created in a digital form, or is digitised from paper as soon as is practicable, and that later transactions of this information happen, as far as possible, over electronic modes of communication.
- This policy must also ensure that as much as electronic receipt of governmental information is seen as a right of citizens, so is non-electronic receipt.
A technological policy should be formulated that mandates the use of open standards in all e-governance to promote interoperability and prevent vendor lock-in, with only temporary and limited exceptions.
- This must be accompanied by a document on technological architecture (whether called an e-governance interoperability framework (e-GIF) policy, or a national enterprise architecture (NEA)) that lays down the broad parameters of the technology framework to enable the information architecture policy, including the metadata standards.
The ability to reuse the published data must be guaranteed as part of a public sector information/open government data policy. This is crucial to enable journalists, CSOs and others.
All information must be provided free of cost at least in cases where:
- The government is not monetising the data, nor has plans to do so; or
- The data is for use by individuals and small and medium enterprises; or
- The data is available without any special fees under right to information/freedom of information statutes.

Technology

All public authorities must be made to ensure that they use open standards, such as Unicode, prescribed in the e-GIF/ NEA. In addition, their data processing and publishing processes must comply with those laid out in these architectural documents.
Sector-specific and use-specific metadata must be included in all files and objects made available to the public, so that when they use the services to retrieve objects they can make sense of the objects and manipulate them appropriately.
This metadata must be standardised, as this is a crucial requirement to enable easy categorisation and searching of information. An important part of searching through the data is also searching through the full contents of the datasets.

Most ambitious steps

Goal
To translate the publishing of open governmental data into better data via input from the public.

Justification
Public outreach and citizen-oriented tools are crucial to ensuring a vibrant online and offline public sphere where government data are used and discussed and a feedback loop is created, rather than this being a mere data dump. Using service-oriented architecture will help in ensuring platform independence, better scalability, greater code reuse, higher availability of services, parallel development of different components and many other benefits in terms of provision of data for governments. A robust service-oriented architecture will enable citizens to be treated as yet another client asking for information, and will enable useful application programming interfaces (APIs) to be built that will allow for easy access for power users to the data.

Integration with social media is a must, because it allows governments to reach vast networks of people at once and defray costs. Such integration will allow governments to go where many citizens are, rather than trying to get the citizens to come to them. However, care must be taken to ensure that such integration is done with adequate safeguards for privacy, long-term archival capability and data portability.

Recommendations

Policy and process

The pro-elite bias that is often inherent in online technologies must be actively neutralised through policy. Such a policy must be designed to ensure that there is no elitist capture of the benefits of open government data, and that there is active promotion of ‘offline translation’ of data, especially in technologically divided countries where the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not is wide.
Governments must allow for correction of data by the public.
Offline translation of data must be facilitated, especially in technologically poorer countries.

Technology

Documents should be structured with semantic mark-up, which allows for intelligent querying of the content of the document itself. Before settling upon a domestic usagespecific semantic mark-up schema, well-established XML schemas should be examined for their suitability and should be used wherever appropriate.
Multiple forms of access must be provided to the data, and it must be made available interactively through the web for non-technical users. For more advanced users, the data must be available for bulk downloads, and it should also be accessible through well-documented open APIs.
There should be a single-point portal (similar to the UK’s Data.gov.uk) to provide access to different public authorities’ data.
All data should be Cloud-based to the extent that it ensures lower overheads for the government.

Download the full report (PDF, 440 Kb)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/open-government-data-commitments-best-practices

Department of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS

pranesh — 2014-12-31T14:36:01Z

On December 17, 2014, the Dept. of Telecommunications blocked 32 URLs (as it was ordered to do so by the by Dept. of Electronics & IT — specifically the Designated Officer under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009), those being: 01) https://justpaste.it/ 02) http://hastebin.com 03) http://codepad.org 04) http://pastie.org 05) https://pasteeorg 06) http://paste2.org 07) http://slexy.org 08) http://paste4btc.com/ 09) http://0bin.net 10) http://www.heypasteit.com 11) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phorkie 12) http://atnsoft.com/textpaster 13) https://archive.org 14) http://www.hpage.com 15) http://www.ipage.com/ 16) http://www.webs.com/ 17) http://www.weebly.com/ 18) http://www.000webhost.com/ 19) https://www.freehosting.com 20) https://vimeo.com/ 21) http://www.dailymotion.com/ 22) http://pastebin.com 23) https://gist.github.com 24) http://www.ipaste.eu 25) https://thesnippetapp.com 26) https://snipt.net 27) http://tny.ct (Tinypaste) 28) https://github.com (gist-it) 29) http://snipplr.com/ 30) http://termbin.com 31) http://www.snippetsource.net 32) https://cryptbin.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.pdf