The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
‘Piracy is now a mainstream political phenomenon'
https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-political-phenomenon
<b>“Piracy has become a mainstream political phenomenon,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in the city. The piracy that he was referring to was not the piracy of the high seas but the piracy of intellectual property.
</b>
<p>Mr. Abraham was speaking at the ‘Resource mela and meet of documentary centres' at the Centre for Education and Documentation (CED). The three-day mela ended on Sunday.</p>
<p>He argued that the process of documentation was a political matter. The theme of his talk was on the tussle between knowledge in the public domain versus its restriction by copyright. Mr. Abraham explained that documentation centres can have four positions vis-à-vis intellectual property restrictions.</p>
<p>The first position could be to agree with the existing law on intellectual property and defend the interests of those who own those rights.</p>
<p>A second position could be to acknowledge the usefulness of copyright laws while balancing it with the interests of the creator, entrepreneur, consumer and the general public. This balancing act is being further pushed by three important global campaigns — the right of persons with disabilities to read, the right of student communities to bypass certain copyright restrictions, and the necessities of archivists and librarians.</p>
<p>Moving to the other side of the spectrum, a third position that documentation centres can have is a ‘position of openness' by supporting only freely licensed intellectual property material. The extreme position that can be taken is to dismiss all the laws that exist around intellectual property and freely “pirate” knowledge.</p>
<p>‘No longer shameful'</p>
<p>Arguing from this position, Mr. Abraham said that it was no longer shameful to be known as a “pirate” today. “There are elected members of parties advocating piracy in certain European countries such as Sweden and even in the European Union.”</p>
<p>Mr. Abraham openly advised documentation centres not to greatly concern themselves with copyright issues in their work, as in India no two lawyers would agree on copyright laws while very few cases of copyright infringement actually came up in Indian courts.</p>
<p>He concluded his talk by indicating that there was no global model that could be applied to intellectual property rights “as there is no model that works for everyone everywhere”.</p>
<p>The resource mela was intended to be a multi-dimensional sharing centred around a national network of documentation centres called DCM. The programme was organised by Akshara, Aalochana and CED.</p>
<p>Read the original article in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/22/stories/2010112250980200.htm">Hindu</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-political-phenomenon'>https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-political-phenomenon</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property Rights2011-04-02T07:44:40ZNews ItemYear Ahead Copyright 2010: Between An Enforcement “Gold Standard” And Stronger Limitations
https://cis-india.org/news/year-ahead-copyright-2010
<b>Whereas copyright is increasingly being exchanged for contractual relationships why all the debate and new efforts in national and international copyright legislation. Monika Ernet's article in the Intellectual Property Watch examines this in the wake of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the international treaty on access to online books for the visually impaired. The article also carries Pranesh Prakash's views on introduction of technical protection measures and the protection of them by law.</b>
<p>The secretly negotiated Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is now in centre stage in the global debates around copyright, as is a prospective new international treaty on access to online books for the visually impaired which comes as part of a broader push to clarify limitations and exceptions to copyright. But some are asking, why all the debate and new efforts in national and international copyright legislation when copyright is increasing being exchanged for contractual relationships?</p>
<p>ACTA may bring with it the punishment of internet denial for infringement that has been fiercely discussed in several European countries and adopted in France, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan. ACTA is seen by critics as another push by governments backing their rights holders in the eternal wars over copyright.</p>
<p>But on the other side, there is much hope that a new treaty for the visually impaired will be negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Open-ended consultations on outstanding issues were promised to be finalised over the early months of 2010 by the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.</p>
<h3>ACTA and Enforcement</h3>
<p>The seventh round of negotiations for ACTA ended after four days of talks in Guadalajara on 29 January. Round eight is expected for April in Wellington, New Zealand. If you ask the negotiators, they will tell you that they expect to get this done in 2010.</p>
<p>There seems to be a sense of urgency to complete ACTA just at the moment when a growing list of members of national parliaments from the United States (Congress), the United Kingdom and Germany are asking for access to the ACTA documents and while the first small street protest was organised outside the meeting place in Guadalajara, Mexico. “Are the commitments of negotiators to transparency real or a strategic move?” asked New Zealand’s Labour Party politician Clare Curran before the meeting in Guadalajara.</p>
<p>“We will have a hearing on ACTA presumably in March,” said EU Member of Parliament Alexander Alvaro, who has questioned the European Commission on the transparency, timeline and scope of the agreement. The Commissioner Designate for International Trade, Karel de Gucht, said clearly: “If there is confidentiality, I will respect it and I have to respect it.” It is impossible, he said, to change the terms during the negotiations.</p>
<p>While he promised that he would make sure Parliament - which has now to agree to ACTA under the newly in effect Lisbon Treaty - would be “duly informed,” the Parliament which just engaged in its first fights over its new competencies with the European Council and Commission might not take that bite, said Alvaro.</p>
<p>The Commission, meanwhile, is for 2010 preparing to put forward a follow-up to the IP enforcement directive (IPRED), as a draft text on IPRED II for criminal sanctions is expected to be put forward in May or June, immediately after the evaluation report on IPRED due in April.</p>
<h3>Rethinking Limitations and Exceptions</h3>
<p>While there is a big push for ACTA - which International Trademark Association President Richard Heath from Unilever said should be set as “gold standard” - there are growing concerns in academic circles. Annette Kur, IP law expert at the Max Planck Institute of Intellectual Property and Tax Law, said there is a feeling in the expert community that “we cannot go on and on tightening the screw.”</p>
<p>Talks at WIPO about a treaty to grant exemptions for blind and visually impaired people have shown promise, but might also slow down other initiatives for a re-balancing of copyright that academics were hoping for. The implementation of other elements of the WIPO Development Agenda would be a good counterpoint against the current wave of maximal demands in rights protection, according to Kur.</p>
<p>But proponents say there is gathering momentum for the visually impaired exception now - including a draft treaty text, which does not exist for any other issue in the committee - and to wait risks losing the chance and gambling on an uncertain and potentially very lengthy process.</p>
<h3>National Copyright Reforms and FTAs</h3>
<p>Some ongoing national copyright legislative reforms echo the demand for the re-balancing, with Brazil’s copyright reform the most far-reaching of these, as copyright law expert Volker Grassmuck recently wrote. The Brazilian law could be the first copyright law “balancing copyright with access and usage rights and consumer protection its declared goal,” Grassmuck wrote, but also said that the reform work might be stopped by the Brazilian election campaign in 2010. For several months, a final draft has been announced, Grassmuck told Intellectual Property Watch, yet every time publication has been postponed. “There certainly are concerns that the delay results from industry lobbying against the reform at the highest levels,” Grassmuck said.</p>
<p>Indian copyright reform (that like the Brazilian effort started in 2005) also has made a reference to amendments to secure limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired, but is more conservative when it comes to other issues. It more closely follows the line of harmonising its regulation to the international treaties, namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.</p>
<p>The reform effort just got a new push when the Indian Copyright office published a final draft on 24 December. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Center for Internet and Society in Delhi, said that the introduction of technical protection measures and the protection of these by law would bring a big change in India.</p>
<p>Prakash said he is afraid that intermediary liability is on the political agenda of the Indian Copyright Office. This would make sense if one considers the negotiations for a free trade agreement between India and the EU that can be expected to include a lengthy section covering intellectual property, copyright and online service provider liability similar to the one in the EU-Korea FTA. The EU-Korea FTA was to be voted on by EU Parliament this week; the EU-India FTA is expected to be finalised in 2010.</p>
<p>Copyright reforms are also under way in Canada, Hong Kong, Serbia, and in the United Kingdom the digital economy bill is under heavy discussion because of far-reaching regulatory power planned for UK communications regulator OFCOM. In Germany, a third round of copyright law reform is on the agenda with private broadcasting companies, publishers and the music industry asking for better copyright protection.</p>
<h3>Contracts Instead of Copyright?</h3>
<p>But while these reforms and treaty and FTA negotiations are ongoing, there is also another trend seen by experts and users of copyright, said Jeanette Hofmann, an internet governance expert. “Copyright, this moral beacon, more and more ceases to play a role in practical terms. As an author I have to live with a complete buy-out and as a copyright customer, let’s say in the library, I am often dependent on the contracts that the library has with private companies, too.”</p>
<p>Benjamin White, head of the intellectual property at the British Library, has asked the question of whether copyright is still relevant in the digital age. “What I deal with is contracts,” he said, warning that “in most EU member states contracts effectively trump copyright laws. Limitations and exemptions are irrelevant, if there is a contract that says otherwise.” Libraries are contracting with private companies that could help them to fund digitisation projects, but would then regulate access to these objects.</p>
<p>White said while he credits Google for getting the discussion started on how digitisation could be funded, he also wants to see a debate on whether people are comfortable with one private company having access to million of books. The Google book settlement and contracts with libraries in the US and other countries in effect could be seen as a monopoly being created around orphan works and a way to control access to millions of works for years. The EU Commissioner Designate for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes, when asked what she thought of Google’s book project, said she liked competition. Regulation for orphan works is on the EU Commission’s work agenda.</p>
<p>Competition and more business offers were also said by Swiss IP lawyer Rolf Auf der Maur to be the focus of the music industry instead of enforcement. Auf der Maur, regular panellist at Midem (the largest annual conference of the music industry), said acknowledgement was trickling down in the music industry that collective licence models, for example licensing music to internet service providers, or even thoughts about flat-rates might be better than only focussing on enforcement.</p>
<p>The major labels are interested in ventures like streaming service Spotify. Paul Brindley, co-Founder of digital music expert consultant Music Alley, said government funding for digital music service models could be expected from the British Technology Strategy Board.</p>
<p>Yet this message could sound overly optimistic given that the music industry is the party heavily promoting a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ approach against copyright infringers.</p>
<p>Or might there be rights owners that think what Joe McNamee, political expert for European Digital Rights (EDRI), predicts: “you can forget about enforcement of copyright, if you focus on copyright and do not get the right content in the right formats available to consumers then you will not solve the problem.“ Innovation would be blocked, he warned, and ever stronger enforcement regulation would finally lead to a lot of collateral damages in civil rights.</p>
<p>For librarian White there also is an urgent need for a change. He said regulators need to create clear rules on access in the digital world like are set out in the Brazilian copyright reform proposal. White said he was hoping that WIPO, whose secretary general, Francis Gurry, had acknowledged the challenge of solving the relationship between private contracts and copyright, would act on the issue of access. Will that happen in 2010?</p>
<p>Monika Ermert may be reached at <a href="mailto:info@ip-watch.ch">info@ip-watch.ch</a></p>
<p>For original article on IP Watch, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/02/02/copyright-2010-between-an-enforcement-gold-standard-and-stronger-limitations/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/year-ahead-copyright-2010'>https://cis-india.org/news/year-ahead-copyright-2010</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property Rights2011-04-02T13:43:24ZNews ItemWorld IT Forum 2009
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/witfor-2009
<b>At the World IT Forum, Pranesh Prakash made a brief presentation on intellectual property rights, how ill-suited they are to be considered "property" rights, and how they have been foisted upon the developing world.</b>
<div class="moz-text-html">
<div class="moz-text-html">
<p>At the
recently-concluded World IT Forum, 2009, the Commission on Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues organized three sessions. One
on 'Digital Intellectual Property Rights and Digitisation of Divides',
a second on 'Employment of ICTs Toward Effective Realization of
Millenium Development Goals' and a third on 'E-Governance and
Biometrics: Evaluating Opportunities and Threats'. The individual
sessions had K.M. Gopakumar of Third World Network ("Digital Technology
and Access to Knowledge: Policy Space for the Third World), Naveen
Thayyil ("Digital IPRs: Implications for Divides in New and Emerging
Biotechnologies"), Anita Gurumurthy of IT for Change,("Reimagining the
Digital Opportunity" ), Chat Garcia Ramilo of APC Women's Networking
Support Programme ("Gender Dimensions of ICT Development"), Ajit
Narayanan of AUT ("What Does Your Passport Say About You?"), Sohel
Iqbal of Korea University ("Obligation and SWOT of E-Governance in
Developing Countries") and Dinh Ngoc Vuong of the Institute of
Lexicography and Encyclopedia of Vietnam ("Legal Aspects and Role of
E-Governance in Vietnamese Reforms") speaking. As part of the first
session, I spoke on how IPR as a property regime leads to
mischaracterisation, and how IPR is a foreign system for developing
countries. </p>
<p>Amongst the many reasons that IPR should not be regarded in the same
light as property (even though that conceptual framework is <a class="external-link" href="http://volokh.com/2003_09_07_volokh_archive.html#106337694122641243">supported
by the likes of Eugene Volokh</a>) are to be found in David Levine's
rejoinder to Volokh that <a class="external-link" href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/coffee.htm">IPR
are analogous to property</a>, along with the <a class="external-link" href="http://lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_lsolum_archive.html#106338119420336709">two</a>
<a class="external-link" href="http://lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_lsolum_archive.html#106349932466050651">rejoinders</a>
by Larry Solum. Volokh's main point is that not only control of use
and excludability, but incentives to create are also part of property
law, for both tangible property and intangible "property". This is
questioned not only by David Levine and Larry Solum, but by Mark
Lemley, Wendy Gordon, and a host of other scholars. Three simple
points to note: (1) IP deals with internalisation of positive
externalities, which is not something we normally associate with
property law -- thus, IP actually <a class="external-link" href="http://volokh.com/posts/1173221206.shtml">does not give me
control over my 'property', but over yours</a>;
(2) IP deals with a truly non-exhaustable, non-rivalrous good -- ideas
-- which, as shown in the articles linked above, are not suited to
being governed by property regimes; (3) IP goes much beyond what
property law does with tangible property, since it not only governs the
sale of IP and exclusion of others from my IP, but also governs the
subsequent usage of IP.</p>
<p>Another relevant consideration is the way that IP law has been
spread through the globe through means like colonisation and modern-day
unbalanced trade treaties.&nbsp; India got its first copyright law
in 1914 and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=969C">signed
the Berne Convention in 1928</a>,
much before its independence. The TRIPS Agreement of 1995 mandated
things like product patents for pharma products for all countries, even
though an industrialised Western country like Spain only started
recognizing them in 1992, and even though Italy, which was then the
fifth largest manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, was forced to
introduce product patents by a petition of foreign pharma companies in
1978. The benefits of product patents for pharma products have not been
empirically proved, but the <a class="external-link" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7632318.stm">harms
caused by patents to production of newer medicines</a>
have been well documented. Given these, it is imperative that
developing countries push back against IP expansionism that is knocking
on their doors through instruments like Free Trade Agreements.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/witfor-2009'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/witfor-2009</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2011-08-04T04:44:33ZBlog EntryWorkshop on Innovation, Economic Development and IP in India and China
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-innovation-economic-development-and-ip-in-india-and-china
<b>Anubha Sinha and Rohini Lakshané presented at the SMU-JINDAL-RENMIN Workshop on “Innovation, Economic Development, and IP in India and China,” co-organised by the Singapore Management University, O.P. Jindal Global University, and Renmin University of China, in Delhi during September 27-28, 2016. Amitabh Kant, Chief Executive Officer, NITI Aayog, delivered the inaugural address at the workshop.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Workshop Brochure: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/invitation-workshop-innovation-economic-development-and-ip-in-india-and-china" class="internal-link">Download</a> (PDF)</p>
<hr />
<h4>Anubha Sinha - "Investigating Limits to Innovation and Peer Production in India's Mobile Apps Economy"</h4>
<p>Slides: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/investigating-limits-to-innovation-and-peer-production-in-indias-mobile-apps-economy" class="internal-link">Download</a> (PDF)</p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="420" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/hBZDkyN9kkgCfM" width="510"> </iframe></p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Rohini Lakshané - "Exploring Open Hardware in Mass Produced Mobile Phones"</h4>
<p>Slides: <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/exploring-open-hardware-in-mass-produced-mobile-phones" class="internal-link">Download</a> (PDF)</p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="420" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/N8TpwEtUAb4hRH" width="510"> </iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-innovation-economic-development-and-ip-in-india-and-china'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-innovation-economic-development-and-ip-in-india-and-china</a>
</p>
No publisherAnubha Sinha and Rohini LakshanéPeer ProductionAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsOpen HardwareOpen InnovationMobile AppsPatents2016-10-09T04:41:38ZNews ItemWorkshop on Competition Law and Policy
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy
<b>National School of Law India University and the Delegation of European Union to India jointly organized a workshop at Competition Commission of India in New Delhi from October 19 - 21, 2016. Anubha Sinha and Rohini Lakshané participated and made presentations. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The workshop was organized under the broader EU-India project titled "Capacity Building Initiative in Competition Area under Trade Development Programme" sponsored jointly by European Union Delegation and National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Download</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/workshop-brochure-cci.pdf" class="internal-link">Workshop brochure</a></li>
<li>Anubha Sinha's presentation on "<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cci-presentation.pdf" class="internal-link">Investigation into the sub $100 Mobile Device Industry from IPR + Competition law lens</a>"</li>
<li>Rohini Lakshané's presentation on <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cci-workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy.pdf" class="external-link">CCI Workshop on Competition Law and Policy Competition Policy and Internet</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-10-23T01:51:25ZNews ItemWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:51:38ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:44:21ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:08ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:37ZFileWIPO reaches agreement on treaty for blind
https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind
<b>Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups. </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by Pankaj Mishra was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/zirXp3IC1rTtAFOd2O4fYL/WIPO-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind.html">published in Livemint</a> on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Experts such as <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham </a></span>of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind'>https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-07-01T09:59:29ZNews ItemWIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries
<b>As World Intellectual Property Organization member states launched into discussions on exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of libraries and archives this week, non-governmental organisations were given the opportunity to present their views on the issue. They delivered vibrant, sometimes contradictory, statements on the opportunity for a treaty to preserve exceptions in the international copyright system. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 26th session of the WIPO Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is taking place from 16-20 December. After two days devoted to the protection of broadcasting organisations, the focus of the next two days has been on a potential international instrument providing exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their general statements, countries remained faithful to their known positions. Developing countries generally underlined the necessity of achieving a balanced international copyright system and their wish to establish a legally binding instrument, and developed countries were of the view that the existing international copyright system already provides exceptions which could be used by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The African Group said the countries in the group: find it difficult to set up and understand the existing limitations and exceptions; believe an international legally binding instrument would enable them to understand better how they can provide exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives; and consider that it would provide a mechanism for cross-border exchange for such entities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union clearly stated that its member countries were not willing to consider a legally binding instrument, and said that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives did not require the same kind of action that was taken in favour of visually impaired people, referring to the recently adopted <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245323">Marrakesh Treaty</a> to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Developed countries, in particular those in the European Union, did not always stand in favour of a treaty providing exceptions and limitations to copyright for visually impaired people. In the discussion on libraries and archives, developed countries are in favour of sharing national experiences rather than establishing binding new norms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States said it was not in support of norm-setting through treaty provisions. The delegate also said exceptions and limitations should be consistent with other member state obligations, including the so-called three step test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The notion of three-step test haunted the discussions leading to the Marrakesh Treaty. It stems originally from <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P140_25350">Article 9(2)</a> of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (<a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/06/14/test-of-political-flexibility-in-final-lap-for-wipo-treaty-for-the-blind/"><i>IPW</i>, WIPO, 14 June 2013</a>) and provides conditions for reproduction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A large number of non-governmental organisations took the floor on 18 December, with stark differences in the approach of the issue of exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Industry, Creators: International Instrument Superfluous</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The industry, such as the International Federation of Film Producers, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), The International Association of Editors (IPA), the International Video Federation (IVF), the Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE), and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), said that the existing international copyright framework already provides exceptions and limitations, and national legislations can be develop to address issues met by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">FILAIE said that it was in support of the Marrakesh Treaty but that a balance between society and the rights holders should be maintained. The IPA said there is no need for change in the international law, and suggested active legislative assistance to WIPO member states by the secretariat.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IVF concurred and said effective technical assistance in implementing the existing international copyright framework should be a focus of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation (IFRRO), in <a href="http://www.ifrro.org/content/ifrro-statement-wipo-sccr-26-18-december-2013">its statement</a>, also said the current international conventions adequately provide for the establishment of relevant library exceptions in national legislation, such as reproduction for preservation proposals. The sharing of experiences ” both in the wording of library and archive exceptions and practical solutions seems to IFRRO to be the most appropriate way to enhance the performance of library and archive services,” the representative said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Exceptions and limitations are already part of the toolkit of existing treaties,” the representative for the International Federation of Actors and the International Federations of Musicians said. The international normative framework is providing “a coherent and flexible structure with just recognition of the contribution of creators to the information society and knowledge society, and the establishment of exceptions and other mechanisms providing access for the public to creative content,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Authors Forum concurred with the idea that existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility and asked that WIPO member states “will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the WIPO texts for adequate remuneration for the authors in accordance with the three-step test.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries, Archive Underline Inadequacies, Support Treaty</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries and archivists have a different view of the issue and reported on problems as they experience them on the ground.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The German Library Association cited a new study published by the European Commission (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/131216_study_en.pdf">Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society</a> [pdf]), and said it “paints a dire picture of the adequacy of the Directive for exceptions for libraries in the European Union in the digital environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In particular, the representative said, it “identifies a lack of cross-border application of exceptions for libraries and a patchwork of national laws as preventing libraries from fulfilling their functions,” in particular presenting cross-border issues, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There is a high level of international copyright protection,” he said, but “there is no such uniformity of limitations.” To act legally, he said, “library staff has to know about the limitations and exception, not only in their own country, the country of origin, but also in the country of destination of its service.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Canadian Library Association said it came to WIPO “to ensure a basic copyright framework is made available to libraries everywhere, and not just in Canada to deliver essential information services, and so that other communities can benefit from the same societal and economic impacts as we have in Canada.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even in Canada, the representative said, libraries’ activities are under threat, “as increased restrictions such as technology group protection measures and licensing terms and conditions degrade the environment in which we work, leaving libraries changing our role to simple market access intermediaries for publishers.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For Electronic Information for Libraries, an international framework establishing basic standards is necessary to avoid increasing inequalities in public knowledge. “We recognise the theory that the international copyright framework provides legal space to ensure meaningful limitations and exceptions,” the representative said, “But when the reality is different, and the gap between countries is widening, intervention is required to ensure the integration of key public interest concepts into the international framework.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions also underlined the disparity in national exceptions and limitations making it impossible for libraries to “competently fulfil our role as intermediaries between rights holders and users.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Archives</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Council of Archives (CIA) said a legally binding instrument will enable cross-border for non-commercial research purposes. The Societies of American Archivists said “current law prevents us from using the barrier-breaking technology to reach the shared goals of archives and copyright law, that is, expanding knowledge and creating new works.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The United States, for instance, has some library and archives exceptions, but they are inadequate and woefully out of date,” the representative said, listing a number of actions that are not permitted, such as preserving backup copies of digitised materials. “As for fair use, it is often subject to costly litigation leaving too many archives hesitant to put material online,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International underlined the increasing role of contracts in eroding exceptions in countries which have statutory exceptions. “We notice,” the representative said, “that the groups that oppose the library treaty are strong supporters of treaties for broadcast organisations.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Center for Internet and Society (India) supported an international instrument, in particular from the perspective of developing and least-developed countries. It would serve two main purposes, the representative said. On the one hand, it would protect copyrighted works, and on the other, it would provide greater access to these materials, and allow the dissemination of knowledge, culture and information, in accordance with the WIPO Development Agenda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The SCCR Chair, Martin Moscoso, director of the Peru Copyright Office, encouraged member states to take the NGOs statements into account.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-27T14:40:05ZNews ItemWIPO Broadcast Treaty and Webcasting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting
<b>On Friday, 8 May 2009, at Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting held a stakeholders' briefing meeting on the Broadcast Treaty that has been on the table at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The purpose of that meeting was to inform the relevant stakeholders of the developments in Geneva, as well as to garner input from them regarding the stance to be adopted by India at the WIPO. Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society participated and made a presentation on webcasting, highlighting the differences between webcasting and broadcasting, and arguing that webcasting should not be part of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty.</b>
<p>First, we wish to applaud the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for holding this stakeholders' meeting, which is a definite step towards greater transparency, and are grateful for having been invited to provide our input. The meeting was attended by representatives from various government offices and ministries, including the Ministry of Human Resource Development (which administers the Indian Copyright Act), broadcasters, broadcast associations, law firms, and civil society organisations. The Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting inaugurated the session by talking of how the Broadcast Treaty involved the assessment and balancing of various interests while keeping 'public interest' foremost. This was followed by Mr. N. P. Nawani, Secretary General of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibf-india.com/about_home.htm">Indian Broadcasting Foundation</a> (IBF), presenting on the concerns of the broadcasting industry. After this Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan, head of the School of Law, Cochin University of Science and Technology, spoke.<br /><br />Prof. Gopalakrishnan covered many areas of relevance: the concept of broadcasting and the legal rights involved; the scheme of legal protection over broadcast signals and over the content of the signals, and the difference between the two; gaps in the international law covering broadcasting; details of the proposed broadcast treaty; the implications of the broadcast treaty and concerns of the Indian government; and unresolved issues.<br /><br />Amongst the unresolved issues mentioned by Prof. Gopalakrishnan was that of webcasting and the problems related to that. The discussion below aims to shed some light on some of the problems created by the inclusion of webcasting in the broadcast treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Legal regimes for broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>At the national level, the law governing broadcasting is the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Broadcasting is covered by many sections of the Indian Copyright Act, including: ss. 2(dd) (definition of "broadcast"), 2(ff) (definition of "communication to the public"), 37 (the section granting a special "broadcast reproduction right"), and 39A (containing exceptions to s.37). At the international level, broadcasting is covered by the Rome Convention, 1960 (which India has signed, but hasn't ratified); the Brussels Convention, 1974 (only pre-broadcast satellite signals); the TRIPS Agreement, 1994 per Article 14 (which doesn't mandate that broadcasting rights be granted directly to the broadcasters); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) in Articles 2(f) and 15; and the proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations ("Broadcast Treaty"). In May 2006, provisions for webcasting were brought back into the Broadcast Treaty as part of the non-mandatory Appendix after having been excised in 2004 owing to protests by many countries on their inclusion. The current draft (SCCR/15/2 rev.) was prepared in September 2006 as an attempt to put together an all-inclusive document (with alternative versions of proposed provisions present in the document), and a diplomatic conference was planned to push the treaty through. In August 2007, WIPO released a 'non-paper' (SCCR/S2/Paper1) and dropped plans for the diplomatic conference, as there was still significant disagreement about the treaty. In November 2008, the WIPO chair released an informal paper (SCCR/17/INF/1), which advocated technological neutrality, and hence, presumably, that webcasting to be covered by the treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Meaning of broadcasting and netcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Broadcasting is generally taken to be a point-to-multipoint transmission of audio-visual content. Hence, cable transmissions and Internet/Web transmissions (which are point-to-point) are usually not included when one uses the term "broadcasting". But there is no one common definition of "broadcasting". As things stand in the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, the definition of broadcasting (Art. 5(a)) does not cover cablecasting, which is separately defined in Art. 5(b), neither does it cover webcasting. However, the definition of "retransmission" as provided in the draft treaty is broad enough to cover Internet-based transmission, and hence could provide a backdoor via which webcasting is included. The rights covered by the all-inclusive draft WIPO Broadcast Treaty include the rights of and over: retransmission; communication to the public; fixation; reproduction; distribution; transmission following fixation; making available of fixed broadcasts; and pre-broadcast signals. The treaty also mandates legislative protection to systems of digital rights management (DRM) and technological protection measures (TPMs). This, coupled with post-fixation rights, grants broadcasters the rights to dictate what one can and cannot do with a broadcast, thus negating all fair dealing rights and possibly restricting the public domain as well. It may be noted that even content creators are not provided such rights in the vast majority of the world, and that fair dealing rights are much better safeguarded by copyright law. The latest proposal by the U.S. on the term "netcasting" is to be found in an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_inf_2.doc">informal paper presented at SCCR 15</a> [MS Word document], and has been <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/2006/09/how-restrictive-is-usptoloc-proposed.html">criticised as overly expansive</a> by civil society organisations such as Consumer Project on Technology (now Knowledge Ecology International).<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Non-justifications for webcasting's inclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Webcasting is sought to be included within the Broadcast Treaty for a number of reasons, all of which are problematic. Firstly, there is the argument of technology neutrality, which advocates say is to ensure that the treaty is relevant into the future as well. However, adopting technology neutrality as the basis for doing so amounts to wilful blindness to technological advancements, and the benefits that such advancement provides, including lowered costs of infrastructure. Secondly, advocates argue that thanks to media convergence, the same content (which is usually digital) can be delivered through various communication networks. This disregards the need to establish the requirement for a new right to be created, and simply assumes that just because the function that the two (broadcasters and webcasters) perform are similar means that they operate in similar economic and social environments. In fact, webcasters work in a very different environment from broadcasters. <br /><br />This is an environment where intense innovation and competition already exist, and don't need to be artificially created by means of a new property right in an international treaty. Furthermore, the United States, a country with extremely large and hugely profitable broadcasting networks, does not have a specific statute to protect broadcasters’ rights. Even it only has laws protecting the conditional-access regime. Second, much less investment is required to reach a set number of people through webcasting than through broadcasting -- and these people can be spread throughout the globe. Typically, a computer with a fast internet connection is all that is required. Given this, anyone can become a 'broadcasting organisation'. Additionally, IP addresses (in IPv6) are not limited, unless one considers 340 undecillion addresses to be 'limited'. This is a big difference from terrestrial broadcasting, where Hertzian frequencies are limited, and hence one has to pay a premium for them. Lastly, signal appropriation does not happen for sake of the signal, but for the content. Protection, thus has to be given to the content (and already is given, in the form of copyright law). Copyright owners who object to such appropriation, and who are often large multinational corporations, have proven more than willing to pursue those who appropriate their works – broadcasters are not necessarily in a better position to do so. This situation is aggravated with webcasting. Indeed, on the Web, something akin signal appropriation is not only not frowned upon, but often encouraged: embedding of audio and video from other servers on your own website is prevalent.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Problems if webcasting is included</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Apart from the lack of justifications for going ahead with the treaty, especially when it seeks to create a separate property right over signals instead of merely providing for signal protection and includes webcasting (at least upon 'retransmission'), there are many problems that the treaty creates. Firstly, transaction costs will increase vastly, leading to a tragedy of the anticommons where no one ends up using the content because clearing all the surrounding rights is too difficult. On top of clearing and making payment for rights from the copyright holders, a person wishing to use parts of any content that has been broadcast/webcast would have to get the rights cleared from the first broadcaster/webcaster as well. This is inevitable if property-like rights are bestowed upon the act of distributing signal in the form of a broadcast or hosting audio and visual content for webcasting.<br /><br />Secondly, materials in the public domain and openly-licensed content will become more difficult to gain access to, and the exercise of fair dealings with copyrighted content will be hampered. Since rights over signal are independent of rights over content, a copy of the public-domain work will have to be procured from an archive, which negates the very purpose of broadcasting and webcasting, which is to make content more easily accessible to a large number of people located over great distances. Additionally, limitations and exceptions are extremely difficult to negotiate and are of the 'ceiling' kind, limiting the limitations and exceptions that national legislatures can prescribe. Thus, the fair dealing rights over the signal will probably end up being more limited than the fair dealing rights over content. This makes the situation akin to anti-circumvention measures, which (in countries where they are legally recognised) have fewer limitations and exceptions than the content they protect.<br /><br />Thirdly, public benefit and access will seriously be harmed. It is conceivable that this treaty might hamper the Indian legislature's ability to pass statutes such as the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, which mandate sharing of certain kinds of signals. Lawyers will claim that such statutes go against India's international obligations.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Differences between webcasting and broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>To sum up, there are a large number of differences between broadcasting and webcasting.<br /><strong>Infrastructure</strong>: The expenditure required to establish the infrastructure for a webcasting unit is much less than that required for an equivalent (in terms of reach in terms of listeners). Even traditional broadcasting is not that expensive: fixed-frequency radio transmission kits have been known to cost as little as Rs. 50 (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4735642.stm>. Thus, one of the biggest arguments for protection ('to recover investment') is taken away. The content producers' 'investment' is protected by copyright law.<br /><strong>Competition</strong>: Providing incentives to increase competition and hence public benefit is often a reason cited as a reason for introduction of a new property-like right. However, such incentives seem utterly redundant in the online market where becoming a webcasting organisation is trivial, and immense competition already exists.<br /><strong>Broadcasting vs. Uni- and Multicasting</strong>: The notion of 'broadcasting' does not exist in IPv6. The closest that a webcaster can come to broadcasting is 'multicasting' to a specific range of IP addresses. What one sees on the Web today is "unicasting", which is initiated by a request from the recipient and not by the webcaster.<br /><strong>Temporal limitations</strong>: Unlike traditional broadcasting (which does not include cable), content on demand is possible over the Web. By this, the temporal limitations faced by traditional broadcasting, which is ephemeral, are overcome. This opens up many possibilities that should not be hampered by creating an excessive legal regime (and that too a property regime) over webcasting.<br /><strong>Geographic limitations</strong>: While terrestrial broadcasting is limited in geographic scope (which satellite and cable-casting are less susceptible to), webcasting knows no geographic limitations. As long as an Internet connection is present, the content can be viewed anywhere. Additionally, granting a separate webcasting right will open up a jurisdicational can of worms.<br /><strong>Marginal costs of subscribers</strong>: While in terrestrial broadcasting, adding an additional receiver does not cost the broadcaster anything, in satellite television (direct-to-home), cable television and webcasting, each additional receiver means either additional infrastructure (cables and set-top boxes) or additional server load. In the case of webcasting, this marginal cost is small enough to ignore, especially given all the other reasons mentioned previously.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>There are still a number of uncertainties surrounding the inclusion of webcasting in the Broadcast Treaty. Michael Nelson of the Internet Society points out that questions such as who the broadcaster is in a download grid, in distributed gaming, for webcasts of surveillance videos, etc., are unanswered. As the example of the download grid (a situation where the 'casting' is multipoint-to-point) shows, many Internet-specific scenarios have not been contemplated by the treaty negotiators. Situations which might soon be reality, such as peer-to-peer relaying of webcasts are also not contemplated, and the treaty would become a policy document preventing such technological innovations. Whether IPTV would be included within webcasting is also unclear. The WIPO chair in his informal paper noted, 'Finally, if after consideration of the options above (A/B) and possible other options, it will not in the present situation be possible to decide on the establishment of a new treaty, the SCCR should end these discussions through an express decision in order to avoid further spending of time, energy and resources to no avail. Such a decision could include a timetable for later revisiting and reconsidering the matter.' (SCCR/15/2 rev) SCCR should end these discussions which have gone on for more than a decade without any progress.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-08-04T04:42:10ZBlog EntryWhy piracy is tough to rein in
https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-tough-rein
<b>“Video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the film industry” </b>
<p>Armed with a shoulder-strung carry bag, Meeran (name changed) walks into an apartment block that he frequents. By the time he comes out, he has sold nearly 10 pirated DVDs. His brother runs a shop which makes a business of Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,500 a day. But regular customers can avail themselves the privilege of his visit to their homes.</p>
<p>Film buffs like Madhankumar Subbiah, who buys DVDs, say the proliferation of multiplexes means a significant number of people cannot afford to go to the cinema regularly. “On the other hand, a whole family can watch the movie spending just Rs.30 on a pirated DVD. I feel that this trend would continue unless ticket prices are reduced,” he adds.</p>
<p>Depending on which side of the copyright debate you are on, Meeran is either a pirate who is a making a dent on the film industry's profits or a trader who is trying to take advantage of a backlash against monopolistic tendencies in the entertainment industry.</p>
<p>According to sources in the Video Piracy Wing of the Central Crime Branch, Puducherry is the headquarters of the illegal piracy business. Multiple copies are made using the master prints from the overseas rights agreement and distributed to various parts of Tamil Nadu.</p>
<p>CCB's Video Piracy Wing, in the last one year, has booked 234 cases and arrested 279 persons, of which 23 have been booked under the Goondas Act.</p>
<p>To understand piracy, it has to be placed in context. G. Dhananjayan, Chief Operating Officer, Moser Baer Entertainment, says the opportunity is not there for the consumer to buy the original. “Tamil cinema is not encouraging other modes of revenue generation. Unlike anywhere else in the country, producers get into agreements with satellite networks to release it on television before a DVD release.”</p>
<p>The DVD release window is usually six months after the release in theatres. According to him, the video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the industry. Kerala, for example, he says has a thriving video market because the release window is 90 to 100 days after the release in theatres.</p>
<p>Though movies are meant to be viewed in theatres, digital technologies have enabled a segment of movie watchers who prefer to enjoy the experience through on-demand or even streaming content.</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>Nishant Shah, Director, Centre for Internet and Society, says that attempts at controlling piracy are futile. The digital technologies that we are working with are intuitively designed for copying, dissemination and sharing.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>According to him, copyright is not a pre-given frame of reference. It arose, historically and culturally, with the industrialisation of information and came into being so strongly because of the possibilities and limitations of analogue technologies.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>He says media conglomerates that “try to imagine the consumer as monolithic and unchanging, and accuse them of piracy and theft, will only alienate the audience.” It is a move that fails to recognise the changing dynamics of cultural economies, he adds.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Read the original in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article614145.ece">Hindu</a></p>
<span class="Apple-style-span"><br /><br /></span>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-tough-rein'>https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-tough-rein</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property Rights2011-04-02T10:16:50ZNews ItemWhy Parallel Importation of Books Should Be Allowed
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books
<b>There has been much controversy lately with some publishers trying to stop the government from amending s.2(m) of the Indian Copyright Act, clarifying that a parallel import will not be seen as an "infringing copy". This blog post argues that the government should, keeping in mind the larger picture, still go ahead and legalise parallel imports.</b>
<p>[Updated Wednesday, February 2, 2011, to respond to <a class="external-link" href="http://dearddsez.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-abrahams-rebuttal-to-why.html">Thomas Abraham's extensive and thoughtful rebuttal</a> of the earlier version this post.]</p>
<p>First off, here is the controversial clause, with the proposed amendment (the insertion of a "proviso", in legalese) being emphasised in bold font-face:</p>
<h2>The amendment<br /></h2>
<blockquote>
<p>2(m) "infringing copy" means,—</p>
<p> (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;</p>
<p> (ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;</p>
<p> (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;</p>
<p> (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;</p>
<p><strong>Provided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some claim that this amendment to s.2(m) ("provided that... copy") has the potential to
destroy the publishing industry. The most lucid explanation of this was in a recent op-ed by Thomas Abraham
in the Hindustan Times, very ominously titled <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/652735.aspx">The Death of Books</a>. However it seems to us that the publishing
industry—especially foreign publishers with distributorships in India—don't want to open
themselves up to competition in the distribution market, and are opposing this most commendable move.</p>
<h2>What is parallel importation?<br /></h2>
<p>Before getting into explanations of why allowing for parallel importation is good, and how the arguments otherwise fall short, we should examine what parallel importation is. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Parallel import, insofar as copyright is concerned, involves an “original” copyright product (i.e. produced by or with the permission of the copyright owner in the manufacturing country) placed on the market of one country, which is subsequently imported into a second country without the permission of the copyright owner in the second country. For instance, the copyright owner of a book produced in India places the book on the market in India. A trader buys 100 copies of the book from India and imports them to China without the permission of the copyright owner of the book in China. This act of the trader bringing the books into China is called parallel import, the legality of which depends on the copyright law of the importing country (namely China in this example)." (Consumers International, <em>Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws</em> 23 (2006).)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some fear-mongers try to equate parallel importation with
'anarchy' in markets, and some confusedly claim that this amendment would allow <em>infringing</em> copies of books
would be permitted. That is simply not true. For parallel importation to be said to happen, the sale must itself be legal. If it is an an illegally sold copy (a pirated copy of a book, for instance) that is imported, then it will count as a black market import—not as a parallel import. Allowing for parallel imports will only dismantle
monopoly rights over importation, and the amendment makes
that amply clear.</p>
<h2>Harms on existing books of not allowing parallel importation</h2>
<p>Libraries/second-hand bookshops/consumers have no way of knowing if a book was originally imported legally or not, since there is no easy way of telling a parallel-ly imported copy apart from a exclusively imported copy. If one of them, even unknowingly buys/sells a foreign edition about which they am not sure and it turns out it was not legally imported (and there are literally thousands of such books, and I personally own at least a couple dozen foreign editions bought from various second-hand bookshops) then they are committing copyright infringement.</p>
<p>This precisely was argued by the library associations and others in <em>amici</em> briefs to the US Supreme Court in the <em>Costco v. Omega</em> case. For instance, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the the American Library Association, the Association of College
and Research Libaries, and the Association of Research Libraries in
Support of Petitioner</a> argues that:</p>
<blockquote>By restricting the application of [the first sale doctrine] to copies manufactured in the United States, the Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens the ability of libraries to continue to lend materials in their collections. Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit’s narrowing of [the first sale doctrine] only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a “lending license” whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States. <br /></blockquote>
<p>and, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the Public Knowledge, American Association of Law Libraries,
American Free Trade Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association in
Support of Petitioner</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>The uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding [against parallel importation] will harm used bookstores, libraries, yard sales, out-of-print book markets, movie and video game rental markets, and innumerable other secondary markets. Owners of copyright works or goods containing copyrighted elements manufactured abroad will be unable to dispose of these products without authorization at the risk of liability under copyright law’s extensive damages provisions. Furthermore, the chilling effects of the Ninth Circuit’s holding will extend beyond works manufactured abroad. Owners of copies of works will be unable to determine whether they are protected by [the first sale doctrine], as they will not always know where their goods were manufactured. Copyright holders will have little incentive to make clear the location of manufacturing of their copyrighted works,3 as greater uncertainty means a greater ability to sell the right to distribute the goods within the United States. Secondary market sellers who cannot afford to purchase this right will be unable to do business unless they are prepared to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation with an uncertain result. A wide variety of important secondary markets in copyrighted works and goods with copyrighted elements will suffer without the protection of the first sale doctrine.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Benefits of parallel importation</h2>
<h3>Dismantling distribution monopoly rights<br /></h3>
<p>The benefits that will accrue from allowing for parallel importations
are huge. Currently a large percentage of educational books in India
are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in
importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition,
the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an
authorization to import books—the licence raj that currently exists
would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit. This is
especially important for students and for libraries because even when
low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.</p>
<p>Allowing people to import goods without permissions (with appropriate duties) is taken for granted in all other areas, so why not copyrighted works? After all, it is not the act of publication that gets affected, but the right of exclusive distribution. And if that goes away after first sale internationally, that's not a bad thing at all.</p>
<p>Generally, there are two main benefits of allowing for parallel importation: faster introduction of the latest international releases into the domestic country, and lowered prices by decreasing the costs imposed by a monopoly right over distribution.</p>
<p>All the foreign books that an online bookseller like Flipkart delivers in India are procured from international sources. Without parallel importation, Flipkart will have to ask for permission from the book publishers for each foreign book each time it makes a sale. This would cripple Flipkart's business model.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Helping book publishers</h3>
<p>Book publishers will be benefited by parallel importation, just as they are benefited by the existence of libraries and second-hand book stores. Libraries and second-hand book stores help with market segmentation, providing access to people who can't afford expensive books at much lower rates, often free. However, the existence of second-hand book stores in almost every city in India—I have personally bought second-hand books everywhere from Jhansi (Leo Tolstoy's <em>War and Peace</em>) to Delhi's Darya Ganj market (Edmund Wilson's <em>Letters on Literature and Politics</em>)—does not prevent me from buying books first hand. Indeed, Wilson's <em>Letters</em> is out of print, and cannot be bought in a store like Crosswords or Gangaram's.</p>
<p>Why do I emphasise second-hand books and libraries? They are artefacts of something variously known as the "first sale doctrine" or the "doctrine of exhaustion" in copyright law: After the first sale of a book, subsequent sales, rentals, etc., cannot be controlled by the copyright owner. Parallel importation is simply a matter of applying this doctrine to the first sale of the book internationally rather than its first sale in India. </p>
<p>Thus we see that the existence of second-hand books, libraries, and parallel imports, are all dependent on the same rule of copyright law: the first sale doctrine. This doctrine is enshrined in s.14(b)(iv) of the Indian Copyright Act, and has been interpreted by the Delhi High Court to mean first sale in India. The present amendment changes that to mean first sale internationally.</p>
<p>The introduction of the modern "public library" in the mid-19th century
led to a surge in literacy, readership, and book sales, and not a
decline. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that allowing parallel importations will lead to a decline in book sales.</p>
<h3>Helping libraries and the print-disabled<br /></h3>
<p>Even currently, many people buy books directly from abroad and have them shipped to India. This is especially necessary for libraries whose patrons—scholars and students—very often need access to the latest books. Currently, libraries often buy books from abroad from Amazon, Flipkart, Alibris, etc. Such acts, within a strict reading of the law, are not legal, since they fall afoul of s.51(b)(iv), since the import is not for the "private and domestic use" of the libraries. This is also of especial concern for organizations working with print-disabled individuals, since the number of books legally available domestically in formats accessible by the print-disabled is very small, and often need to be imported.</p>
<h3>Helping all consumers<br /></h3>
<p>An excellent report was prepared in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/publications/copyright-and-access-to-knowledge">2006 by Consumers International</a>, in which they studied the costs of textbooks in eleven countries, including India, by average purchasing power of each country's citizens, instead of absolute cost. Based on that study, and a detailed investigation of international treaties on copyright and the flexibilities allowed in them, Consumers International recommended that India should amend our law to make it clear that parallel importation of copyrighted works is legal (on page 51 of the report).</p>
<h2>Rebutting objections</h2>
<p>I will address a few specific objections raised by Mr. Abraham, Nandita Saikia, and others.</p>
<h3>1. Authors' won't lose out on royalties<br /></h3>
<p>Authors do not lose out on royalties because of parallel importation, just as they do not lose out on royalties because of libraries, nor because of second-hand book stores.
For parallel importation to take place, the books have to be purchased
legally, and that first sale itself ensures that authors are paid royalties. </p>
<p>Of
course, publishing contracts often have a clause that remaindered books will
not garner royalties. But in that case, the problem is not parallel importation,
but the overstocking and subsequent <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindering of books</a>. The authors wouldn't be paid (or would be paid very little) for remaindered books even if the books weren't imported into India. Parallel importation
does not in any way change that.</p>
<p><strong>Indian authors</strong></p>
<p>There is a worry that an Indian author would be hit if remaindered copies of his/her books started entering the Indian market. That would mean that foreign publishers had overstocked that Indian author's book, i.e., that the expectation from the book was much higher than the actual demand. If this happens infrequently, then the author hasn't much to worry about (since remainders aren't a big problem). If it happens frequently, then firstly the publisher should re-adjust to the market and realize that demand is low. Secondly, the author needs to worry more about quality of the book (and whether it caters to foreign audiences) than the possible effects that the availability of cheaper copies of that book would have.</p>
<h3>2. Remaindered books are in publishers' control<br /></h3>
<p>India has amongst the cheapest book prices in the world. Then why would book publishers be wary of even cheaper books overrunning the Indian market? The reason, Mr. Abraham tells us, is <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindered books</a>. He believes that remaindered books have the potential to destroy the Indian book
market. Remaindering of books has been happening for decades. If remaindered books haven't already
destroyed all book markets worldwide, then it is unlikely that they will
do so suddenly just because parallel importation of books is permitted
in India.</p>
<p>Remainders happen because of a miscalculation by the publisher: expecting more demand than was actually present. What happens with that excess stock is controlled by the publishers. They can choose to pulp them, burn them, or even push them into other channels of commerce that Mr. Abraham points out exist in the mature, frontline markets where remaindering happens:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the reason why they have not destroyed book markets worldwide is because the mature markets exist with multiple strands (chains and high street stores, independents, direct sellers, online sellers, and supermarkets)—so a direct seller will sell the same book a high street store is selling at a much reduced price without it affecting the business of each strand. Each strand is discrete and price sensitivity does not matter the same way. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since those multiple strands of commerce exist, each of which would enable the seller to get a better profit (being in a developed country) than in India, there is no reason to fear overrunning of the market with remainders.</p>
<h3>3. Dumping of books should be tackled separately<br /></h3>
<p>An extension of the remaindered books concern is that of India becoming a land where all books will be dumped. This hasn't happened in case of countries like New Zealand,
Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Cameroon, Pakistan, Argentina, Israel, Vietnam, South Korea,
Japan, and a host of other countries, all of which allow for parallel importation of books. In a 1998 judgment, the United States Supreme Court, <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">some parallel imports of copyrighted goods were legal</a>.
That ruling did not cause the downfall of the US book market, despite
cheaper books being available outside the US. Australia has allowed for
parallel importation of books in one form or another since 1991 (when
the law was changed to allow for all parallel of all books that weren't
introduced in the Australian market within 30 days of it being released
elsewhere in the world). New Zealand did a study after removing the ban
on parallel importation, and declared that cheaper books were available
on a more timely basis than previously. None of these countries have
been overrun by grey market books.</p>
<p><strong>Customs laws are better suited</strong></p>
<p>Even assuming that this fear is well-founded, copyright law is not the best way to deal with the problem. Dumping of books should be regulated by customs laws (anti-dumping and countervailing duties). Using copyright law to regulate apprehended book dumping practices (which might not even happen) is like using a trawler hoping to catch only shrimp: it is naive to think that there won't be unintended <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bycatch">bycatch</a>, and the consequences can be disastrous for the knowledge environment in case of books.</p>
<p>Customs laws are more flexible because they are imposed by the executive, and unlike copyright law, can be more easily changed as per requirements. So even if copyright law allows for parallel importation of copyrighted works, a special case can be made out by publishers in case of trade publishing, for instance, and that can be targetted specifically by imposing duties. However, the inverse cannot happen, since we are not aware of any mechanism whereby libraries, consumers and others can get to 'override' the provision in the Copyright Act.</p>
<p>Additionally, these duties can be made to operate only if the book is already being sold in India; these duties can be made to operate only on new books. A ban on parallel importation, on the other hand will apply equally to books that are out of print, to books that the original copyright owner has not even granted an exclusive Indian distributorship and are not even being sold in India. It goes right to the heart of freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to receive information.</p>
<h3>4. Non-printing of low-priced editions for India because of "unsecure"
market won't happen<br /></h3>
<p>Parallel importation, which is what the amendment to s.2(m) allows for,
affects only importation. It does not in any way affect publication in
India or exports. Exporting low-priced Indian editions to countries which allow for parallel importation of books, is currently of doubtful legality. [Update: Earlier an incorrect claim was made in this post that such export was legal. The legal status is not that clear. While there is a Delhi High Court case that makes exports of low-priced editions illegal in the context of sale to the United States, it specifically states that the decision <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">does not depend on whether India allows for parallel importation or not</a>.] The
amendment does not change that position, for reasons explained at greater length <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">in a separate post</a>. The incentives to print
low-priced editions hence does not decrease. If anything it will increase
because currently books that are not available as low-priced editions
cannot be imported without exclusive licensing, and with a change in this position, the incentive to compete in the form of low-priced editions will increase.</p>
<p>Indeed, even before that 2009 Delhi High Court judgment prohibiting exports to the United States, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. And even before the 2005 Bombay High Court judgment prohibiting parallel imports, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. This won't change, regardless of the law, because India is an increasingly profitable and expanding market, and low-priced editions are a necessity in this market due to lower average income.</p>
<h3>5. Rhetoric flourish and the law: Open and closed markets<br /></h3>
<p>Mr. Abraham asks how many authors one can name from open markets like Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as a sign of the 'history of creativity' in each of these countries and territories. It might be just as well to ask how many authors he can name from closed markets like Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, and Ukraine. One's ability to name authors from a country has less to do with the open/closed nature of its market and more to do with one's general knowledge.</p>
<p>Additionally, the 'mature' markets which he wishes India to emulate—United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia—are more ambiguous on parallel importation than he would have us believe. In the United States, the legality of a segment of parallel importation of copyrighted goods reached the United States Supreme Court in <em><a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">Quality King v. L'anza</a></em> in 1998, in which the court held in favour of the importer. </p>
<p>The question reached the US Supreme Court again last year in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/costco-v-omega/"><em>Costco v. Omega</em></a>, but the court split on it 4-4, and <a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2010/12/16/costco-omega-libraries-and-copyright/">did not deliver a binding precedent on parallel importation</a>. Thus, for all intents and purposes, under copyright law, the United States is an open market. </p>
<p>In the United Kingdom, as per European Union law, <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/uk">parallel importation is permitted from anywhere within the EU</a>. And in Australia, parallel importation of parallel goods is largely allowed, with <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/australia">some conditions to encourage faster publishing in Australia of foreign books.</a></p>
<p>Most importantly, none of the markets held up as role models are developing countries. India is. This makes all the difference, as the Consumers International report underscores.</p>
<h2>Standing Committee consultations</h2>
<h3>Lack of wide consultation<br /></h3>
<p>On one point we are in complete agreement with Mr. Abraham, which is his point regarding lack of adequate consultation. While there was a good amount of consultation during the drafting stage, when a wide-ranging public consultation was held in 2006, this was not repeated in 2010 by the Standing Committee. Further, the Standing Committee only gave fifteen days for responses to its call for comments.</p>
<h3>Publishers were represented<br /></h3>
<p>While Mr. Abraham states that only the Authors Guild was represented before the Standing Committee, by going through the report prepared by it, we see that the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India were also called to testify before the Standing Committee. </p>
<h3>Libraries, students, consumers were not represented</h3>
<p>However, while the authors supported it, and the publishers opposed it, no one got to hear the voice of the readers, the students, the libraries, the book buyers. For instance, not a single consumer rights organization or library association was called before the Standing Committee. Internationally, organizations like Consumers International, the International Federation of Library Associations, and EIFL (an international library organization) are invited to meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization and their views are taken with seriousness as they are a very important part of the copyright environment.</p>
<h3>Department's and Standing Committee's reasoning</h3>
<p>We reproduce below four paragraphs from the Standing Committee's report, which elucidate many of the reasons for going in for this particular amendment.</p>
<blockquote>7.10<br />All the reservations/objections raised by the various stakeholders [including the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India, whose objections are quoted in an earlier paragraph of the report -ed.] were taken up by the Committee with the Department with the intent of having full understanding of the background necessitating the proposed amendment and its exact impact on the various stakeholders. As clarified by the Department, the main purpose of this amendment was to allow for imports of copyright materials (e.g. books) from other countries. It was in accordance with Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement relating to exhaustion of rights whereunder developing countries could facilitate access to copyright works at affordable cost. Exhaustion of rights (popularly called as parallel import) was a legal mechanism used to regulate prices of IPR protected materials. This was viable only if the price of the same works in the Indian market was very high when compared to the price in other countries from where it was imported to India. <br /><br />7.11<br />Committee's attention was drawn to the fact that majority of educational books used in India were imported from other countries particularly from US and EU. There was an increasing tendency by publishers to give territorial licence to publish the books at very high rates. The low price editions were invariably the old editions than the latest ones. This provision would compel the Indian publishers to price the works reasonably so that it would not be viable for a distributor to import same works to India from other countries. This would also save India foreign exchange on the payment of royalties (licence fee) by the Indian publishers to foreigners. <br /><br />7.12<br />Committee was also given to understand by the representatives of the publishing industry that Scheme of the Copyright Law was entirely different from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Patent Act, 1970. The application of the standards and principles of these two laws through the proposed amendment of section 2(m) would completely dismantle the business model currently employed, rendering several industries unviable. On a specific query in this regard the Department informed that the concept of international exhaustion provided in section 107 A of the Patent Act, 1971 and in section 30 (3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and in section 2 (m) of the copyright law were similar. This provision was in tune with the national policy on exhaustion of rights.<br /><br />7.13 <br />After analysing the viewpoints of all the stakeholders along with the clarifications given thereupon by the Department, the Committee is of the view that proposed inclusion of the proviso in the definition of the term 'infringing copy' seems to be a step in the right direction, specially in the prevailing situation at the ground level. <strong>The present practice of publishers publishing books under a territorial license, resulting in sale of books at very high rates cannot be considered a healthy practice.</strong> [Emphasis added.] The Committee also notes that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. It has been clearly specified that only those works published outside India with the permission of the author and imported into India will not be considered an infringed copy. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. <strong>Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law.</strong> [emphasis added.] The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to Government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed, i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>It is clear that allowing for parallel imports is not likely to hurt publishers, but will result in an expansion of the reading market. It is mainly foreign publishers' monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian
publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2019-02-01T17:41:26ZBlog EntryWhen Copyright Goes Bad
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/when-copyright-goes-bad
<b>A part of the Access to Knowledge Project, this short film by Consumers International is available on DVD and online at A2Knetwork.org/film. </b>
<p>For centuries, copyright law has existed to protect creative production whilst promoting public access. But the digital age is challenging this balance and fundamentally changing how we produce, access and distribute content. Suddenly, copyright rules no longer do what they are supposed to do. They have gone bad.</p>
<p>This is a film about how copyright has become one of the most important consumer issues of the digital age; why corporate lobbying risks criminalising the actions of hundreds of thousands of people; and what the future holds for the fight for fairer copyright laws.</p>
<p>When Copyright Goes Bad is an introduction to the renegotiation of copyright and is for anyone interested in how copyright is affecting consumers. It features some of the key players in the copyright debate, including: Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy.</p>
<h3>Quotes from When Copyright Goes Bad<br /></h3>
<blockquote>“People have realised that copyright affects them every day and the direction that we’ve seen over the last few years really troubles them. That’s why so many people are speaking out.” Michael Geist<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“In the U.S, over 35,000 Americans were targeted for lawsuits for downloading music. In ten years time, everyone will look back at that as incredibly unjust and ridiculous. No-one thinks that suing music fans one at a time is the business model of the future.” Fred Von Lohmann</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>“The industry is trying to demonise consumer behaviour. They’re trying to create the idea that it’s a moral debate: is downloading something wrong or right? Is it theft or not? These are the wrong questions and they will only ever produce the wrong answers.” Jim Killock<br /></blockquote>
<h3>Making copyright, right<br /></h3>
<p>When Copyright Goes Bad is being released under a Creative Commons (CC) licence, which means it’s free to copy and adapt, as long as content is attributed and the same CC licence is used. <br />We will also be making available extended interviews with all the contributors, as well as with other experts not featured in the film, under the same CC licence at A2Knetwork.org/film. By providing access in this way we are allowing others to go on and create further work around the issue. <br /><br />View it on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/ConsumersIntl#p/u/0/mBfgmN2gwu0">youtube</a><br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/when-copyright-goes-bad'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/when-copyright-goes-bad</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property Rights2011-08-04T04:37:21ZBlog Entry