The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
You auto-complete me: romancing the bot
https://cis-india.org/raw/maya-indira-ganesh-you-auto-complete-me-romancing-the-bot
<b>This is an excerpt from an essay by Maya Indira Ganesh, written for and published as part of the Bodies of Evidence collection of Deep Dives. The Bodies of Evidence collection, edited by Bishakha Datta and Richa Kaul Padte, is a collaboration between Point of View and the Centre for Internet and Society, undertaken as part of the Big Data for Development Network supported by International Development Research Centre, Canada. </b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Please read the full essay on Deep Dives: <a href="https://deepdives.in/you-auto-complete-me-romancing-the-bot-f2f16613fec8" target="_blank">You auto-complete me: romancing the bot</a></h4>
<h4>Maya Indira Ganesh: <a href="https://bodyofwork.in/" target="_blank">Website</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/mayameme" target="_blank">Twitter</a></h4>
<hr />
<p>I feel like Kismet the Robot.</p>
<p>Kismet is a flappy-eared animatronic head with oversized eyeballs and bushy eyebrows. Connected to cameras and sensors, it exhibits the six primary human emotions identified by psychologist Paul Ekman: happiness, sadness, disgust, surprise, anger, and fear.</p>
<p>Scholar Katherine Hayles says that Kismet was built as an ‘ecological whole’ to respond to both humans and the environment. ‘The community,’ she writes, ‘understood as the robot plus its human interlocutors, is greater than the sum of its parts, because the robot’s design and programming have been created to optimise interactions with humans.’</p>
<p>In other words, Kismet may have ‘social intelligence’.</p>
<p>Kismet’s creator Cynthia Breazal explains this through a telling example. If someone comes too close to it, Kismet retracts its head as if to suggest that its personal space is being violated, or that it is shy. In reality, it is trying to adjust its camera so that it can properly see whatever is in front of it. But it is the human interacting with Kismet who interprets this retraction as the robot requiring its own space by moving back. Breazal says, ‘Human interpretation and response make the robot’s actions more meaningful than they otherwise would be.’</p>
<p>In other words, humans interpret Kismet’s social intelligence as ‘emotional intelligence’...</p>
<p>Kismet was built at the start of a new field called affective computing, which is now branded as ‘emotion AI’. Affective computing is about analysing human facial expressions, gait and stance into a map of emotional states. Here is what Affectiva, one of the companies developing this technology, says about how it works:</p>
<p>‘Humans use a lot of non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, gesture, body language and tone of voice, to communicate their emotions. Our vision is to develop Emotion AI that can detect emotion just the way humans do. Our technology first identifies a human face in real time or in an image or video. Computer vision algorithms then identify key landmarks on the face…[and] deep learning algorithms analyse pixels in those regions to classify facial expressions. Combinations of these facial expressions are then mapped to emotions.’</p>
<p>But there is also a more sinister aspect to this digitised love-fest. Our faces, voices, and selfies are being used to collect data to train future bots to be more realistic. There is an entire industry of Emotion AI that harvests human emotional data to build technologies that we are supposed to enjoy because they appear more human. But it often comes down to a question of social control, because the same emotional data is used to track, monitor and regulate our own emotions and behaviours...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/maya-indira-ganesh-you-auto-complete-me-romancing-the-bot'>https://cis-india.org/raw/maya-indira-ganesh-you-auto-complete-me-romancing-the-bot</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroBodies of EvidenceResearchers at WorkResearchPublicationsBD4DBotsBig Data for Development2019-12-06T05:00:19ZBlog EntryWhose Change is it Anyway?
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/hivos-knowledge-programme-june-14-2013-nishant-shah-whose-change-is-it-anyway
<b>This thought piece is an attempt to reflect critically on existing practices of “making change” and its implications for the future of citizen action in information and network societies. It observes that change is constantly and explicitly invoked at different stages in research, practice, and policy in relation to digital technologies, citizen action, and network societies. </b>
<p>The White Paper by Nishant Shah was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hivos.net/Hivos-Knowledge-Programme/Themes/Civic-Explorations/Publications/Whose-Change-is-it-anyway">published by Hivos recently</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">However, we do not have adequate frameworks to address the idea of change. What constitutes change? What are the intentions that make change possible? Who are the actors involved? Whose change is it, anyway?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Drawing on the Hivos Knowledge Programme and on knowledge frameworks around youth, technology, and change from the last four years, this thought piece introduces new ways of defining, locating, and figuring change. In the process, it also helps understand the role that digital technologies play in shaping and amplifying our processes and practices of change, and to understand actors of change who are not necessarily confined to the category of “citizen”, which seems to be understood as the de facto agent of change in contemporary social upheavals, political uprisings, and cultural innovations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Methodologically, this thought piece attempts to make three discursive interventions: It locates digital activism in historical trajectories, positing that digital activism has deep ties to traditional activism, when it comes to the core political cause. Simultaneously, it recognises that new modes of political engagement are demanding and producing novel practices and introducing new actors and stakeholders. It looks at contemporary digital and network theories, but also draws on older philosophical lineages to discuss the crises that we seek to address. It tries to interject these abstractions and theoretical frameworks back into the field by producing two case studies that show how engagement with these questions might help us reflect critically on our past practices and knowledge as well as on visions for and speculations about the future, and how these shape contemporary network societies. It builds a theoretical framework based on knowledge gleaned from conversations, interviews, and on-the-ground action with different groups and communities in emerging information societies, and integrates with new critical theory to build an interdisciplinary and accessible framework that seeks to inform research, development-based interventions, and policy structures at the intersection of digital technologies, citizen action, and change by introducing questions around change into existing discourse.</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/whose-change-is-it-anyway.pdf" class="internal-link">Click to download the full White Paper here</a> (PDF, 321 Kb)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/hivos-knowledge-programme-june-14-2013-nishant-shah-whose-change-is-it-anyway'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/hivos-knowledge-programme-june-14-2013-nishant-shah-whose-change-is-it-anyway</a>
</p>
No publishernishantDigital ActivismRAW PublicationsDigital NativesYouthFeaturedPublicationsHomepage2015-04-17T10:56:47ZBlog EntryWeb Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective – A G3ict White Paper
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/g3ict-white-paper
<b>G3ict Publishes International Survey of Web Accessibility Policies White Paper by the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, India</b>
<p>With 143 countries having signed the Convention, and 74 ratified it as
of today, web accessibility policy making is fast becoming a leading area of
concern for governments, disabled persons organizations and organizations
operating web sites for the public.</p>
<p>In this timely <a title="G3ict-White Paper" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/Web%20Accessibility%20Policy%20Making-%20G3ict%20White%20Paper-%20CIS%20Bangalore-%20India%202009.pdf/at_download/file">White
Paper</a>, Nirmita Narasimhan, Program Manager at the <a href="https://cis-india.org/../" title="Centre for Internet & Society (CIS)">Centre for Internet & Society
(CIS)</a> in Bangalore, India, provides a very valuable overview of the
early policies and programs adopted by a selection of 15 ratifying
countries. Packed with references and useful links, the contents of this
White Paper will also be made available in the upcoming ITU-G3ict Toolkit for
Policy Makers.</p>
<p><a href="http://g3ict.com/press/press_releases/press_release/p/id_48">Link to the Press Release</a></p>
<p><a title="G3ict-White Paper" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/Web%20Accessibility%20Policy%20Making-%20G3ict%20White%20Paper-%20CIS%20Bangalore-%20India%202009.pdf/at_download/file">Click
here to download the White Paper</a></p>
<p><img src="file:///C:/Users/Sanchia/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" />We would like to thank the following people who have helped preparing this
White paper:</p>
<p>Prashanth Ramdas, Asma Tajuddin, G. Aravind ,Katie Reisner, Sucharita
Narasimhan, Bama Balakrishnan, Nirmita Narasimhan</p>
<p>Expert Reviewers:<br />
Axel Leblois, Donal Rice, Immaculada Placienca Porrero, Kevin Carey, Licia
Sbarella, Sunil Abraham</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/g3ict-white-paper'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/g3ict-white-paper</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaAccessibilityPublications2011-10-19T10:37:07ZBlog EntryWeb Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/a-G3ict-white-paper
<b>G3ict White Paper</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/a-G3ict-white-paper'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/a-G3ict-white-paper</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityPublications2011-08-22T13:19:16ZFileUnlicensed Spectrum Policy Brief for Government of India
https://cis-india.org/telecom/unlicensed-spectrum-policy-brief-for-govt-of-india
<b>Centre for Internet & Society and the Ford Foundation are delighted to bring you the Unlicensed Spectrum Policy brief for Government of India. The policy brief authored by Satya N Gupta, Sunil Abraham and Yelena Gyulkhandanyan contains an Executive Summary and eight chapters. The research aims to recommend unlicensed spectrum policy to the Government of India based on recent developments in wireless technology, community needs and international best practices.</b>
<h2>Executive Summary</h2>
<p>The aim of this policy brief is to recommend unlicensed spectrum policy to the Indian Government based on recent developments in wireless technology, community needs and international best practices. We seek to demonstrate the need for and importance of unlicensed spectrum as a medium for inexpensive connectivity in rural/remote areas and source of innovation by serving as a barrier-free and cost-effective platform for testing and implementing of new technologies.</p>
<p>The specific frequency bands that we request for unlicensing are: 433-434 MHz, 902-928 MHz, 1880-1900 MHz, 2483-2500 MHz, 5150-5350 MHz, and 5725-5775 MHz. These demands reflect the widespread market adoption in countries where these bands have already become unlicensed.</p>
<p>Interference concerns to licensed users, which are the predominant reason for the limited allocation of unlicensed spectrum, are greatly diminished. Interference-free spectrum use by multiple operators is enabled by the short-range, low-power nature of most of the technologies operating in these spectrum bands, as well as innovative techniques that facilitate spectrum sharing.</p>
<p>Technological advancements such as Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), Ultra Wide Band (UWB), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Near -Field Communication (NFC) systems, and others have demonstrated that when an opportunity for cost-efficient and flexible spectrum usage is presented in the form of unlicensed spectrum, the market is likely to respond through innovation and expansion.</p>
<p>The value of unlicensed spectrum in bridging the digital divide has been demonstrated through community wireless networking projects as well as inexpensive ITES (IT enabled services) operating on unlicensed spectrum that have been created to spread connectivity to digitally-marginalized areas. As demonstrated by numerous case studies, such networks administer e-learning, e-commerce, telemedicine, e-agriculture, and many other initiatives that lead to equitable social and economic growth, making unlicensed spectrum a “public good”.</p>
<p>The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), European Union telecom regulatory bodies, as well as leading state telecom policy makers and regulators such as the FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) and OFCOM (UK Office of Communications) have recognized that the optimal use of radio spectrum is dependent on flexible spectrum management policies and the multi-time sharing of this precious resource. Of late, the relevance of unlicensed spectrum is being recognized by policy makers in India as well. This is evident from the National Telecom Policy 2012, as well as recent remarks on the subject made by senior government officials.</p>
<hr />
<p>Download the Unlicensed Spectrum Policy brief for Government of India below:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/telecom/unlicensed-spectrum-brief.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Unlicensed Spectrum Policy for Government of India">PDF Document</a> [519 Kb]</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/telecom/unlicensed-spectrum-brief.doc" class="internal-link" title="Unlicensed Spectrum Policy brief for Government of India">Word File</a> [124 Kb]</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/unlicensed-spectrum-policy-brief-for-govt-of-india'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/unlicensed-spectrum-policy-brief-for-govt-of-india</a>
</p>
No publisherSatya N Gupta, Sunil Abraham and Yelena GyulkhandanyanTelecomPublications2012-09-11T16:23:45ZBlog EntryUniversal Service for Persons with Disabilities: A Global Survey of Policy Interventions and Good Practices
https://cis-india.org/universal-service-for-persons-with-disabilities
<b>The Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies and the Centre for Internet and Societies in cooperation with the Hans Foundation have published the Universal Service for Persons with Disabilities: A Global Survey of Policy Interventions and Good Practices. The book consists of a Foreword by Axel Leblois, an Introduction and four chapters. Deepti Bharthur, Axel Leblois and Nirmita Narasimhan have contributed to the chapters.</b>
<h3>Foreword</h3>
<p>Universal Service definitions have been developed by 125 countries and are the foundation for policies and programs ensuring that telecommunications are available to all categories of population. Universal service funds are the main vehicle used to fund those programs, primarily addressing imbalances such as lack of availability of services in rural areas. While geographic coverage has vastly improved over the past decade with wireless infrastructure, the scope of Universal Service has expanded to include other categories of underserved populations.</p>
<p>Among those, persons with disabilities and senior citizens, who represent 15% of the world population<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> are an increasing concern for legislators and regulators. Basic accessibility features for public telephone booths, fixed line or wireless handsets, customer services in alternate formats such as Braille, or assistive services such as relay services for hard of hearing or deaf persons are in fact not implemented in a majority countries.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<p>To address those issues, several countries have expanded the scope of their national definition of Universal Service Obligation to include persons with disabilities allowing programs promoting the accessibility of information and communication technologies to be covered by Universal Service Funds.</p>
<p>The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by over 150 countries since March 31st, 2007 will likely accelerate this trend: States Parties have an obligation to ensure that Information and Communication Technologies and Services are made accessible to persons with disabilities. This can be done by aligning the definition of Universal Service Obligation with article 9 of the Convention and expanding the charter of Universal Service Funds to cover programs promoting accessibility for persons with disabilities. This report is the first attempt to document how Universal Service definitions and related policies and programs have been implemented by various countries to ensure that persons with disabilities have full access, on an equal basis with others,to telecommunication services.G3ict would like to express its sincere appreciation to the Center for Internet and Society for its support of this project, to Nirmita Narasimhan for researching and editing this report;to the International Telecommunication Union for providing references and helping identify countries to be surveyed, and to the Hans Foundation for funding the print version of the report. Promoting universal service for persons with disabilities can affect positively the lives of millions of users around the world. We hope that this report may serve as a useful reference for policy makers, operators, organizations of persons with disabilities, and as a framework for good practice sharing among countries currently implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.</p>
<p>Axel Leblois<br />Executive Director<br />G3ict – Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs</p>
<hr />
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>The advent of the Internet and accessible information and communication technologies (ICT) has opened up exciting possibilities and opportunities for persons with disabilities.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the ‘UNCRPD’)3 has explicitly recognized the right of persons with disabilities to seek, receive and impart information on an equal basis with others4 and has placed specific obligations on member states to ensure that all ICT based facilities and services (which include telecommunications services) must be made available and accessible to all. To this end, member states are required to formulate and implement appropriate laws and policies at national, regional and global levels. In an age where almost all spheres of life are inextricably woven with and dependent on ICT, Article 9 of the UNCRPD on Accessibility is possibly one of the most powerful and critical tools in the hands of policy makers to ensure that persons with disabilities are assured of basic human rights such as education, health, employment and access to information and participation.While the lack of awareness amongst governments is undeniably a serious impediment to implementing accessible ICT in any country, an equally serious and perhaps more realistic problem is the lack of resources which is plaguing many countries, especially developing nations. The fact that governments are already struggling to ensure basic human rights for all citizens by judiciously dividing their limited resources for the whole gamut of needs makes it difficult for them to outlay separate and substantial budgets which may be required for implementing ICT accessibility. In such a scenario it becomes very important to look around and identify sources of funding, new or existing, which can be leveraged by governments to fulfill their obligation towards making all ICT based applications and services accessible and promoting assistive technologies for persons with disabilities.</p>
<p>This report aims to highlight the extreme suitability of leveraging the Universal Service Fund (USF) to implement accessibility and assistive technologies in telecommunications. It examines the evolution of the concept of USF, its minimum mandate and scope, funding sources, as well as project implementation mechanisms and showcases countries which are using the USF to fund accessibility projects through policies and programmes.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].WHO Global Report on Disability, June 2011 - <a class="external-link" href="http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/index.html">http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/index.html </a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>].CRPD Progress Report on ICT Accessibility – 2010 by G3ict - <a class="external-link" href="http://g3ict.org/resource_center/publications_and_reports">http://g3ict.org/resource_center/publications_and_reports</a></p>
<hr />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/universal-service-braille/view" class="external-link">Click here</a> for the Braille format</li>
<li>Download the Daisy version <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/universal-service-daisy" class="internal-link" title="Universal Service for Persons with Disabilities - Daisy File">here</a></li>
<li>Download the book <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/universal-service-disabilities.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Universal Service for Persons with Disabilities">here </a>PDF [302 KB] </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/universal-service-for-persons-with-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/universal-service-for-persons-with-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaFeaturedAccessibilityPublications2012-10-08T05:43:46ZBlog EntryTRAI response
https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/TRAI%20CP%20Response-Nov%2012%202009.pdf
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/TRAI%20CP%20Response-Nov%2012%202009.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/TRAI%20CP%20Response-Nov%2012%202009.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaTelecomPublications2011-08-23T03:32:08ZFileThe Online Video Environment in India - A Survey Report
https://cis-india.org/openness/online-video-environment-in-india
<b>iCOMMONS, the OPEN VIDEO ALLIANCE, and the CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY have initiated a research project which seeks to survey the online video environment in India and the opportunities this new medium presents for creative expression and civic engagement. This report seeks to define key issues in the Indian context and begins to develop a short-term policy framework to address them.</b>
<p>The basic assumption of this paper is that the online video medium should support creative and technical innovation, competition, and public participation, and that open source technology can help develop these traits. These assumptions are not elaborated upon here. Instead, this report looks at questions of “openness” that are not strictly technological; that are specific to video in India; and that provide points of entry to a simple policy framework.</p>
<p>The paper is organized in the following parts:</p>
<ul><li>The first chapter, <strong>THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF INDIAN VIDEO</strong>, provides a brief historical timeline of events from the first screening of the Lumiere Brothers films in India in 1896, through the beginning of the twenty-first century. This chapter traces the traditional channels of dissemination of video content in India, and establishes the close and unique bond that the visual medium has formed with Indian society.</li><li>The second chapter, <strong>DIGITAL MEDIA AND NETWORK TRANSFORMATIONS</strong>, looks at recent media transformations like the rise of the Internet and peer-to-peer networking, the proliferation of telecommunications, and other developments which form the backbone of the emerging online video medium. Peer-to-peer and associative networking provides a new means of content circulation throughout the country.</li><li>The third chapter, <strong>MAPPING CONTENT ON THE INTERNET</strong>, traces the various types of visual content visible over these new networks, exploring case studies of videos circulating on the Internet which have raised new questions of censorship, freedom of speech, and the openness of the medium.</li><li>The fourth chapter, <strong>THE ‘OPEN VIDEO’ QUESTION</strong>, creates a judgment-based framework to assess the openness of the medium. This chapter lays out a series of questions around the broad spectrum of openness, viewed from various perspectives of access, participation, open source technology, and availability, with the intent of mapping the circumstances under which online video operates in India. Moreover, the chapter focuses on the structural limitations to video which can be addressed by policy, or even an absence of policy.</li></ul>
<p><em>Whereas the report consciously makes an effort to explore not only transitory web videos but also films, the terms ‘video’ and ‘film’, in many parts are treated interchangeably. Although films and videos represent different traditional mediums of recording, the interest of this report in examining the ‘online video’ content in India, consists of both types of material—accessed perhaps with little distinction</em>.</p>
<p>The scope of this paper is extremely broad and touches upon a wide variety of issues in India, where each area has a peculiar specificity of its situation—urban or rural, geographic, and so on. Links and references have been provided in the footnotes for background readings of these issues.</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/online-video-india-survey-v1" class="internal-link" title="The Online Video Environment in India: A Survey Report">Click here</a> to download the report. [PDF, 1.22 MB]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/online-video-environment-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/openness/online-video-environment-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpennessOpen ContentPublicationsOpen Video2011-10-03T09:31:30ZBlog EntryThe Last Cultural Mile
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old
<b>Ashish’s monograph follows the career of a priori contradiction, one that only mandates a state mechanism to perform an act of delivery, and then disqualifies the state from performing that very act effectively. This contradiction which he names as the Last Mile problem is a conceptual hurdle, not a physical one and when put one way, the Last Mile is unbridgeable, when put another, it is being bridged all the time.</b>
<p>This monograph provides a set of four case studies of the Indian State. The case studies address four technologies, television, telecommunications, networked higher education and the Unique Identity project. It also looks at Wireless-in-Local Loop (or WLL) technology that constituted the first revolution in telecommunications in the early 1990s, the arrival of satellite television also in the 1990s, the low-end IT ‘device’ with which the Ministry of HRD plans to use digitized distance education to increase enrolment of Indian students by five per cent of the overall population, and the celebrated Aadhaar.</p>
<p><strong>Download the Monograph <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf" class="internal-link"><span class="external-link"><span class="external-link">here</span></span></a></strong></p>
<div><br /> <br />
<blockquote class="pullquote"></blockquote>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old</a>
</p>
No publisherkaeruDigital GovernanceInternet HistoriesHistories of InternetResearchers at WorkPublications2015-04-03T10:59:23ZCollection (Old)The 2010 Special 301 Report Is More of the Same, Slightly Less Shrill
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
<b>Pranesh Prakash examines the numerous flaws in the Special 301 from the Indian perspective, to come to the conclusion that the Indian government should openly refuse to acknowledge such a flawed report. He notes that the Consumers International survey, to which CIS contributed the India report, serves as an effective counter to the Special 301 report.</b>
<h1>Special 301 Report: Unbalanced Hypocrisy</h1>
<p>The United States Trade Representative has put yet another edition of the Special 301 report which details the copyright law and policy wrongdoings of the US's trading partners. Jeremy Malcolm of Consumers International notes that the report this year claims to be "well-balanced assessment of intellectual property protection and enforcement ... taking into account diverse factors", but:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[I]n fact, the report largely continues to be very one-sided. As in previous editions, it lambasts developing countries for failing to meet unrealistically stringent standards of IP protection that exceed their obligations under international law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More the report changes, <a href="http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/blog/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009">the more it stays the same</a>. <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4684/195/">Despite having wider consultations</a> than just the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA, consisting of US-based IP-maximalist lobbyists like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, Association of American Publishers, and Business Software Alliance) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA, consisting of US-based pharma multinationals), things haven't really changed much in terms of the shoddiness of the Special 301 report.</p>
<h1>India and the 2010 Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>The Special 301 report for 2010 contains the following assessment of India:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address the unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs remains in draft form and should be enacted in the near term. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This short dismissal of the Indian IPR regime, and subsequent classification of India as a "Priority Watch List" country reveals the great many problems with the Special 301.</p>
<h2>On Copyrights</h2>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The report notes that there are "concerns over India's inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement". However, nowhere does it bother to point out precisely <em>how</em> India's legal framework is inadequate, and how this is negatively affecting authors and creators, consumers, or even the industry groups (MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc.) that give input to the USTR via the IPAA. Nor does it acknowledge the well-publicised fact that the statistics put out by these bodies have time and again <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">proven to be wrong</a>:</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Apart from this bald allegation which has not backing, there is a bald statement about India needing to bring its copyright law "in line with international standards" including "the WIPO Internet Treaties". The WIPO Internet Treaties given that more than half the countries of the world are not signatories to either of the WIPO Internet Treaties (namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty), calling them 'international standards' is suspect. That apart, both those treaties are TRIPS-plus treaties (requiring protections greater than the already-high standards of the TRIPS Agreement). India has not signed either of them. It should not be obligated to do so. Indeed, Ruth Okediji, a noted copyright scholar, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433848">states</a>:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. [...] The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Some of the of the 'problems' noted in the report are actually seen as being beneficial by many researchers and scholars such as Lawrence Liang, Achal Prabhala, Perihan Abou Zeid <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/iipenforcement/bibliography">and others</a>, who argue that <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">lax enforcement has enabled access to knowledge and promotion of innovation</a>. In a panel on 'Access to Knowledge' at the Internet Governance Forum, <a href="http://a2knetwork.org/access-knowledge-internet-governance-forum">Lea Shaver, Jeremy Malcolm and others</a> who have been involved in that Access to Knowledge movement noted that lack of strict enforcement played a positive role in many developing countries. However, they also noted, with a fair bit of trepidation, that this was sought to be changed at the international level through treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement (ACTA).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The scope of an optical disc law are quite different from copyright law. The report condemns "unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs", however it does not make it clear that what it is talking about is not just unlicensed copying of films (which is already prohibited under the Copyright Act) but the manufacture and distribution of blank CDs and DVDs as well. The need for such a law is assumed, but never demonstrated. It is onerous for CD and DVD manufacturers (such as the Indian company Moserbaer), and is an overbearing means of attacking piracy.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The report calls for "improve[ment] [of India's] criminal enforcement regime" and for "deterrent" sentences and expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases. While we agree with the last suggestion, the first two are most unacceptable. Increased criminal enforcement of a what is essentially a private monopoly right is undesirable. Copyright infringment on non-commercial scales should not be criminal offences at all. What would deter people from infringing copyright laws are not "deterrent sentences" but more convenient and affordable access to the copyright work being infringed.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>On Patents</h2>
<p>Thankfully, this year the Special 301 report does not criticise the Indian Patent Act for providing for post-grant opposition to patent filings, as it has in previous years. However, it still criticises section 3(d) of the Patent Act which ensures that 'evergreening' of drug patents is not allowed by requiring for new forms of known substances to be patented only if "the enhancement of the known efficacy of [the known] substance" is shown. Thus, the US wishes India to change its domestic law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better ("enhancement of the known efficacy"). For instance, "new means of drug delivery" will not, contrary to the assertions of the Special 301 report and the worries of PhRMA, be deemed unpatentable.</p>
<p>The United States has been going through much turmoil over its patent system. Reform of the patent system is currently underway in the US through administrative means, judicial means, as well as legislative means. One of the main reasons for this crumbling of the patent system has been the low bar for patentability (most notably the 'obviousness' test) in the United States and the subsequent over-patenting. An <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/447/303/case.html">American judgment</a> even noted that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable subject matter. It is well-nigh impossible to take American concerns regarding our high patent standards seriously, given this context.</p>
<h2>Miscellanea</h2>
<p>The harms of counterfeit medicine, as <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">we have noted earlier</a>, are separate issues that are best dealt under health safety regulations and consumer laws, rather than trademark law.</p>
<p>Data exclusivity has been noted to be harmful to the progress of generics, and seeks to extend proprietary rights over government-mandated test data. It is [clear from the TRIPS Agreement][de-trips] that data exclusivity is not mandatory. There are clear rationale against it, and the Indian pharmaceutical industry [is dead-set against it][de-india]. Still, the United States Trade Representative persists in acting as a corporate shill, calling on countries such as India to implement such detrimental laws.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottowa <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125">astutely notes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Looking beyond just Canada, the list [of countries condemned by the Special 301 report] is so large, that it is rendered meaningless. According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people live in countries without effective intellectual property protection. Since the report does not include any African countries outside of North Africa, the U.S. is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meet its standard for IP protection. Canada is not outlier, it's in good company with the fastest growing economies in the world (the BRIC countries are there) and European countries like Norway, Italy, and Spain.
In other words, the embarrassment is not Canadian law. Rather, the embarrassment falls on the U.S. for promoting this bullying exercise and on the Canadian copyright lobby groups who seemingly welcome the chance to criticize their own country. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>His comments apply equally well for India as well.</p>
<h1>IIPA's Recommendation for the Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>Thankfully, this year <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDIA.pdf">IIPA's recommendations</a> have not been directly copied into the Special 301 report. (They couldn't be incorporated, as seen below.) For instance, the IIPA report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The industry is also concerned about moves by the government to consider mandating the use of open source software and software of only domestic origin. Though such policies have not yet been implemented, IIPA and BSA urge that this area be carefully monitored.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Breaking that into two bit:</p>
<h2>Open Source</h2>
<p>Firstly, it is curious to see industry object to legal non-pirated software. Secondly, many of BSA's members (if not most) use open source software, and a great many of them also produce open source software. <a href="http://hp.sourceforge.net/">HP</a> and <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/ossstds/">IBM</a> have been huge supporters of open source software. Even <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/">Microsoft has an open source software division</a>. [Intel][intel], <a href="http://www.sap.com/usa/about/newsroom/press.epx?pressid=11410">SAP</a>, <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/open_source/index.html">Cisco</a>, <a href="http://linux.dell.com/projects.shtml">Dell</a>, <a href="http://www.sybase.com/developer/opensource">Sybase</a>, <a href="http://www.entrust.com/news/index.php?s=43&item=702">Entrust</a>, <a href="http://about.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_room/press_release/articles/2009/IntuitPartnerPlatformAddsOpenSourceCommunity.html">Intuit</a>, <a href="http://www.synopsys.com/community/interoperability/pages/libertylibmodel.aspx">Synopsys</a>, <a href="http://www.apple.com/opensource/">Apple</a>, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/22/jbuilder_eclipse/">Borland</a>, <a href="http://w2.cadence.com/webforms/squeak/">Cadence</a>, <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=6153839">Autodesk</a>, and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967593-16.html">Siemens</a> are all members of BSA which support open source software / produce at least some open source software. And <em>all</em> BSA members rely on open source software (as part of their core products, their web-server, their content management system, etc.) to a lesser or greater extent. BSA's left hand doesn't seem to know what its right hand -- its members -- are doing. Indeed, the IIPA does not seem to realise that the United States' government itself uses [open source software], and has been urged to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7841486.stm">look at FOSS very seriously</a> and is doing so, especially under CIO Vivek Kundra. And that may well be the reason why the USTR could not include this cautionary message in the Special 301 report.</p>
<h2>Domestic Software</h2>
<p>As <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/indias-copyright-proposals-are-un-american-and-thats-bad.ars">this insightful article by Nate Anderson in Ars Technica</a> notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Open source is bad enough, but a "buy Indian" law? That would be <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng">an outrage</a> and surely something the US government would not itself engage in <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/ARRA.aspx?lang=eng">as recently as last year</a>. Err, right?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, the IIPA submission do not provide any reference for their claim that "domestic origin" software is being thought of being made a mandatory requirement in governmental software procurement.<br />
</p>
<h2>WCT, WPPT, Camcording, and Statutory Damages</h2>
<p>The IIPA submission also wish that India would:</p>
<ol>
<li>Adopt a system of statutory damages in civil cases; allow compensation to be awarded in criminal cases;</li>
<li>Adopt an optical disc law;</li>
<li>Enact Copyright Law amendments consistent with the WCT and WPPT;</li>
<li>Adopt an anti-camcording criminal provision.</li>
</ol>
<p>Quick counters:</p>
<ol>
<li>Statutory damages (that is, an amount based on statute rather than actual loss) would result in ridiculousness such as the $1.92 million damages that the jury (based on the statutory damages) slapped on Jammie Thomas. The judge in that case <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/judge-slashes-monstrous-jammie-thomas-p2p-award-by-35x.ars">called the damage award</a> "monstrous and shocking" and said that veered into "the realm of gross injustice."</li>
<li>The reasons against an optical disc law are given above. Quick recap: it is a) unnecessary and b) harmful.</li>
<li>India has not signed the WCT and the WPPT. Indian law satisfies all our international obligations. Thus enacting amendments consistent with the WCT and the WPPT is not required.</li>
<li>Camcording of a film is in any case a violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, and one would be hard-pressed to find a single theatre that allows for / does not prohibit camcorders. Given this, the reason for an additional law is, quite frankly, puzzling. At any rate, IIPA in its submission does not go into such nuances.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Further conclusions</h2>
<p><a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-special-301-report-and-not-so.html">Shamnad Basheer</a>, an IP professor at NUJS, offer the following as a response:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Dear USA,</p>
<p>India encourages you to mind your own business. We respect your sovereignty to frame IP laws according to your national priorities and suggest that you show us the same courtesy. If your grouse is that we haven't complied with TRIPS, please feel free to take us to the WTO dispute panel. Our guess is that panel members familiar with the English language will ultimately inform you that section 3(d) is perfectly compatible with TRIPS. And that Article 39.3 does not mandate pharmaceutical data exclusivity, as you suggest!
More importantly, at that point, we might even think of hauling you up before the very same body for rampant violations, including your refusal to grant TRIPS mandated copyright protection to our record companies, despite a WTO ruling (Irish music case) against you.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>India."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Basheer's suggestion seems to be in line with that Michael Geist who believes that other countries should join Canada and Israel in openly refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Special 301 Reports because they lack ['reliable and objective analysis'][geist-reliable]. And that thought serves as a good coda.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentConsumer RightsAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPiracyAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsData ProtectionFLOSSTechnological Protection MeasuresPublications2011-10-03T05:37:27ZBlog EntryTechnological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment
<b>In this post Pranesh Prakash conducts a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which deals with the stuff that enables 'Digital Rights/Restrictions Management', i.e., Technological Protection Measures. He notes that while the provision avoids some mistakes of the American law, it still poses grave problems to consumers, and that there are many uncertainties in it still.</b>
<p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/technological/faq03.html">Technological Protection Measures</a> are sought to be introduced in India via the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. This should be quite alarming for consumers for reasons that will be explained in a separate blog post on TPMs that will follow shortly.</p>
<p>In this post, I will restrict myself to a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Bill, which talks of "protection of technological measures". (Section 65B, which talks of Right Management Information will, similarly, be tackled in a later blog post.)</p>
<p>First off, this provision is quite unnecessary. There has been no public demand in India for TPMs to be introduced, and the pressure has come mostly from the United States in the form of the annual "Special 301" report prepared by the United States Trade Representative with input coming (often copied verbatim) from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. India is not a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) which requires technological protection measures be safeguarded by law. That provision, interestingly, was pushed for by the United States in 1996 when even it did not give legal sanctity to TPMs via its copyright law (which was amended in 2000 by citing the need to comply with the WCT).</p>
<p>TPMs have been roundly criticised, have been shown to be harmful for consumers, creators, and publishers, and there is also evidence that TPMs do not really decrease copyright infringement (but instead, quite perversely through unintended consequences, end up increasing it). Why then would India wish to introduce it?</p>
<p>Leaving that question aside for now, what does the proposed law itself say?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>65A. Protection of Technological Measures </p>
<p> (1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.</p>
<p> (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:</p>
<p> (a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:</p>
<p> Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or</p>
<p> (b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or</p>
<p> (c) conducting any lawful investigation; or</p>
<p> (d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or</p>
<p> (e) operator; or [<em>sic</em>]</p>
<p> (f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or</p>
<p> (g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.</p>
</blockquote>
<h1>Implications: The Good Part</h1>
<p>This provision clearly takes care of two of the major problems with the way TPMs have been implemented by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>In s.65A(1) it aligns the protection offered by TPMs to that offered by copyright law itself (since it has to be "applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act"). Thus, presumably, TPMs could not be used to restrict <em>access</em>, only to restrict copying, communication to the public, and that gamut of rights.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>In s.65A(1) and 65A(2) it aligns the exceptions granted by copyright law with the exceptions to the TPM provision. Section 65A(1) states that the act of circumvention has to be done "with the intention of infringing ... rights", and s.52(1) clearly states that those exceptions cannot be regarded as infringement of copyright. And s.65A(2)(a) states that circumventing for "a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act" will be allowed.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>A third important difference from the DMCA is that</p>
<ul>
<li>It does not criminalise the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools (including code, devices, etc.). (More on this below.)</li>
</ul>
<h1>Implications: The Bad Part</h1>
<p>This provision, despite the seeming fair-handed manner in which it has been drafted, still fails to maintain the balance that copyright seeks to promote:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>TPM-placers (presumably, just copyright holders, because of point 1. above) have been given the ability to restrict the activities of consumers, but they have not been given any corresponding duties. Thus, copyright holders do not have to do anything to ensure that the Film & Telivision Institute of India professor who wishes to use a video clip from a Blu-Ray disc can actually do so. Or that the blind student who wishes to circumvent TPMs because she has no other way of making it work with her screen reader is actually enabled to take advantage of the leeway the law seeks to provide her through s.52(1)(a) (s.52(1)(zb) is another matter!). Thus, while there are many such exceptions that the law allows for, the technological locks themselves prevent the use of those exceptions. Another way of putting that would be to say:</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The Bill presumes that every one has access to all circumvention technology. This is simply not true. In fact, Spanish law (in <a href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l3t5.html">Article 161 of their law</a>) expressly requires that copyright holders facilitate access to works protected by TPM to beneficiaries of limitations of copyright. Thus, copyright holders who employ TPMs should be required to:</p>
<ul>
<li>tell their customers how they can be contacted if the customer wishes to circumvent the TPM for a legitimate purpose</li>
<li>upon being contacted, aid their customer in making use of their rights / the exceptions and limitations in copyright law</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<p>How seriously can you take a Bill that has been introduced in Parliament that includes a provision that states: "Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from operator; or" (as s.65A(2)(e), read in its entirety, does)?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h1>Uncertainties</h1>
<p>As mentioned above, the provisions are not all that clear regarding manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools. Thus, the proviso to s.65A(2)(a) deserves a closer reading. What is clear is that there are no penalties mentioned for manufacture or dissemination of TPMs, and that only those who <em>circumvent</em> are penalised in 65A(1), and not those who produce the circumvention devices. However:</p>
<h2>On "shall maintain" and penalties</h2>
<p>In the proviso to s.65B(2)(a), there is an imperative ("shall maintain") requiring "any person facilitating circumvention" to keep records. It
is unclear what the implications of not maintaining such records are.</p>
<p>The obvious one is that the exemption contained in s.65(1)(a) will not apply if one were facilitated without the facilitator keeping records. Thus, under this interpretation, there is no independent legal (albeit penalty-less) obligation on facilitators. This interpretation runs into
the problem that if this was the intention, then the drafters would have written "Provided that any person facilitating circumvention ... for
such a purpose <em>maintain</em>/<em>maintained</em> a complete record ...". Instead, <em>shall maintain</em> is used, and an independent legal obligation seems,
thus, to be implied. But can a proviso create an independent legal obligation? And is there any way a penalty could <em>possibly</em> be attached
to violation of this proviso despite it not coming within 65A(1)?</p>
<h2>On "facilitating" and remoteness</h2>
<p>The next question is who all can be said to "facilitate", and how remote can the connection be? Is the coder who broke the circumvention a
facilitator? The distributor/trafficker? The website which provided you the software? Or is it (as is more likely) a more direct "the friend who sat at your computer and installed the circumvention software" / "the technician who unlocked your DVD player for you while installing it in your house"?</p>
<p>While such a record-keeping requirement is observable by people those who very directly help you (the last two examples above), it would be more difficult to do so the further up you get on the chain of remoteness. Importantly, such record-keeping is absolutely not possible in decentralized distribution models (such as those employed by most free/open source software), and could seriously harm fair and legitimate circumvention.</p>
<h1>More uncertainties</h1>
<p>It is slightly unclear which exception the bypassing of Sony's dangerous "Rootkit" copy protection technology would fall under if I wish to get rid of it simply because it makes my computer vulnerable to malicious attacks (and not to exercise one of the exceptions under s.52(1)). Will such circumvention come under s.65A(2)(a)? Because it does not quite fall under any of the others, including s.65(2)(b) or (f).</p>
<h2>On "purpose" as a criterion in 65A(2)(a)</h2>
<p>A last point, which is somewhat of an aside is that 65A(2)(a) states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There's something curious about the wording, since the Copyright Act generally does not prohibit any acts based on purposes (i.e., the prohibitions by ss.14 r/w s.51 are not based on <em>why</em> someone reproduces, etc., but on the act of reproduction). In fact, it <em>allows</em> acts based on purposes
(via s.52(1)). The correct way of reading 65A(2)(a) might then be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose expressly allowed by this Act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But that might make it slightly redundant as s.65A(1) covers that by having the requirement of the circumvention being done "with the intention of infringing such right" (since the s.52(1) exceptions are clearly stated as not being infringements of the rights granted under the Act).</p>
<h1>Conclusion</h1>
<p>It would be interesting to note how leading copyright lawyers understand this provision, and we will be tracking such opinions. But it is clear that TPMs, as a private, non-human enforcement of copyright law, are harmful and that we should not introduce them in India. And we should be especially wary of doing so without introducing additional safeguards, such as duties on copyright holder to aid access to TPM'ed works for legitimate purposes, and remove burdensome record-keeping provisions.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsFLOSSTechnological Protection MeasuresPublications2012-05-17T16:51:38ZBlog EntrySubmission
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/submission%20to%20the%20DG%20clean%20Nov11th.pdf
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/submission%20to%20the%20DG%20clean%20Nov11th.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/submission%20to%20the%20DG%20clean%20Nov11th.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaAccessibilityPublications2011-08-22T13:13:59ZFileStatement of CIS on the Matter of the Treaty for the Blind
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/CIS-Statement-on-Treaty
<b>Through this paper the Centre for Internet and Society is giving its statement in the matter of the Treaty for the blind, visually impaired and other reading disabled, proposed by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/CIS-Statement-on-Treaty'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/publications/CIS-Statement-on-Treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityPublications2011-08-22T13:18:01ZFileSilicon Plateau: Volume Two
https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-volume-two
<b>Silicon Plateau is an art project and publishing series that explores the intersection of technology, culture and society in the Indian city of Bangalore. Each volume of the series is a themed repository for research, artworks, essays and interviews that observe the ways technology permeates the urban environment and the lives of its inhabitants. This project is an attempt at creating collaborative research into art and technology, beginning by inviting an interdisciplinary group of contributors (from artists, designers and writers, to researchers, anthropologists and entrepreneurs) to participate in the making of each volume.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Download the book: <a href="https://files.cargocollective.com/c221119/SiliconPlateau_VolumeTwo.epub">Epub</a> and <a href="https://files.cargocollective.com/c221119/SiliconPlateau_VolumeTwo.pdf">PDF</a></h4>
<hr />
<p><em>Silicon Plateau Volume 2</em> explores the ecosystem of mobile apps and their on-demand services. The book investigates how apps and their infrastructure are impacting our relationship with the urban environment; the way we relate and communicate with each other; and the way labour is changing. It also explores our trust in these technologies, and their supposed capacity to organise things for us and make them straightforward—while, in exchange, we relentlessly feed global corporations with our GPS data and online behaviours.</p>
<p>The sixteen book contributors responded to a main question: what does it mean to be an app user today—as a worker, a client, or simply an observer?</p>
<p>The result is a collection of stories about contemporary life in Bangalore; of conversations and deliberations on how we behave, what we sense, and what we might think about when we use the services that are offered to us on demand, through just a tap on our mobile screens.</p>
<p>Website: <a href="https://siliconplateau.info/" target="_blank">siliconplateau.info</a></p>
<h4>Contributors</h4>
<p>Sunil Abraham and Aasavri Rai, Yogesh Barve, Deepa Bhasthi, Carla Duffett, Furqan Jawed, Vir Kashyap, Saudha Kasim, Qusai Kathawala, Clay Kelton, Tara Kelton, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sruthi Krishnan, Vandana Menon, Lucy Pawlak, Nicole Rigillo, Yashas Shetty, Mariam Suhail</p>
<h4>Editors</h4>
<p>Marialaura Ghidini and Tara Kelton</p>
<h4>Publisher</h4>
<p>Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, India, 2018. ISBN: 978-94-92302-29-8</p>
<h4>Book and Cover Design</h4>
<p>Furqan Jawed and Tara Kelton</p>
<h4>Copyediting</h4>
<p>Aditya Pandya</p>
<h4>Supported by</h4>
<p>Jitu Pasricha, Bangalore; Aarti Sonawala, Singapore; and the Centre for Internet and Society, India.</p>
<hr />
<p>Cross-posted from <a href="https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/silicon-plateau-volume-two/" target="_blank">Institute of Network Cultures</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-volume-two'>https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-volume-two</a>
</p>
No publishersneha-ppSilicon PlateauRAW PublicationsWeb CulturesFeaturedPublicationsResearchers at Work2019-03-13T01:01:27ZBlog EntrySilicon Plateau Vol-1
https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-vol-1
<b>This book marks the beginning of an interdisciplinary artistic project, Silicon Plateau, the scope of which is to observe how
the arts, technology and society intersect in the city of Bangalore. Silicon Plateau is a collaboration between T.A.J. Residency & SKE Projects and the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India. Volume 1 has been developed in collaboration with or-bits.com.</b>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="//e.issuu.com/embed.html#21775460/31640028" frameborder="0" height="400" width="600"></iframe>
<p> </p>
<h4>For us this series has a two-fold core. One the one side, there is the city of Bangalore, the trigger for various reflections about the way in which technology (old or emerging, as a service or as infrastructure) informs
the socio-cultural and political environment; a city that is fascinating to us not just because we are located here but also for its characteristic fast-paced development shaped by the IT-boom and related industries. On the other side, there are the arts and creative thinking, for us the languages, lenses and methods to be used for interpreting
technological developments and discussing their role and impact in the present time.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>Our hope is that of building a series based on tangible accounts revolving around the unresolved complexities inherent to the intermingling of the arts, technology and society, and in the context of local histories and occurrences rather than of global narratives and mass media constructs. Stories that for our audience, we hope, will be those of the encounters—fortuitous, anticipated or even inconvenient—that a wide variety of contributors will have had with this fascinating city.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>— <em>Marialaura Ghidini</em> and <em>Tara Kelton</em></h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>High-resolution PDF: <a href="https://archive.org/download/SiliconPlateau-Vol1/SiliconPlateauVol1_highres.pdf" target="_blank">Download</a> (31.8 MB)</h4>
<h4>Low-resolution PDF: <a href="https://archive.org/download/SiliconPlateau-Vol1/SiliconPlateauVol1_lowres.pdf" target="_blank">Download</a> (4.7 MB)</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>T.A.J. Residency & SKE Projects: <a href="http://t-a-j.in/" target="_blank">Website</a></h4>
<h4>or-bits.com: <a href="http://www.or-bits.com/" target="_blank">Website</a></h4>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-vol-1'>https://cis-india.org/raw/silicon-plateau-vol-1</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroSilicon PlateauArtWeb CulturesResearchPublicationsResearchers at Work2019-03-13T00:56:36ZBlog Entry