The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 24.
Views on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international
<b>On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6).
Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage.
Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.</b>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon, everyone.</p>
<p>My presentation will be in reference to the revised
consolidated text <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_36/sccr_36_6.pdf">SCCR 36/6</a> and the US proposal <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">SCCR 37/7</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of
rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional –
satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter
signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related
rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.</p>
<p>The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their
programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create
an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities.
This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet
streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail
protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting
organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the
treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by
acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the
current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start
up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step.
And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in
other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m
trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of
broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.</p>
<p>My
co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building
of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an
affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we
urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and
exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept
that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for
countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the
Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an
expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look
who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El
Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international
standard.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">US delegation’s proposal</a>, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of
limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting
organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against
piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does
not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the
proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights
for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations –
organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our
times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.</p>
<p>At a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29025">seminar</a> on this very
treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the
problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this
neighbouring right. He said that the
justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of
disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for
gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had
gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not
account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the
proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing
between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been
raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it
cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil
society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another
practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations
from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it
technically possible to do that?</p>
<p>To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms
need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared
across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and
exceptions is urgently needed. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29234">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingWIPO2018-11-29T10:48:40ZBlog EntryUpdate on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india
<b>Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021. </b>
<p>This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed
against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd,
Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.</p>
<p>In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to
stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it
allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to
remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did
not appear before the court.</p>
<p>Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is
at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy
organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to
not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of
the websites.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/rsidd120/status/1347227162395303939">One</a>
of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public
health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the <em>only</em>
access to educational and research materials for a big community of
Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have
become indispensable during the pandemic.</p>
<p>This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had <a href="http://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Publication_of_Literature.pdf">advocated</a>
for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as
recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/the-sti-policy-proposes-a-transformative-open-access-approach-for-india/">current draft</a>
science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the
monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and
their crippling impact in the Indian context.</p>
<p>They further argue that since the use of the websites is for
research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair
dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have
the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material
for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the
DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and
jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.</p>
<p>In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the
case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear
all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still
remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been
served properly yet.</p>
<p>At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement
(not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared
some thoughts on the case in an interview <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/interview-alexandra-elbakyan-sci-hub-elsevier-academic-publishing-open-access/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have
implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the
statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on
circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to
toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS
Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on
exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic
publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.</p>
<p>The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research
needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first
time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing
country.</p>
<p><em>Note:</em> For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this <a href="https://osf.io/6yph7/">document</a> prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.</p>
<p>Access the article on InfoJustice <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/42977">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeCourt Case2021-04-28T17:28:47ZBlog EntryStanding Committee's recommendations are at odds with Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge
<b>The Indian Parliamentary Committee's report weighs on several aspects of the Indian IPR system and issues of protection and enforcement. This blog post summarily notes the observations and recommendations of the Committee on the Copyright Act, 1957 which stand to impact access to knowledge. The primary issue dealt with was the claim that copyright exceptions were affecting the publishing industry and authors. The recommendations include narrowing of copyright exceptions, barring digital storage and copying, promotion of libraries, and adopting the Berne Convention as the benchmark on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>Last week, the Rajya Sabha <strong>Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce</strong> (Committee) tabled its <a class="external-link" href="https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/13/141/161_2021_7_15.pdf">review of the IPR regime in India</a>. The Committee had initiated work in October, 2020, and during the process consulted with law firms, industry associations, and government departments.</p>
<p>The Committee agreed with the contention of the stakeholders that limitations
and exceptions contained in section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 were
having a detrimental impact on the publishing industry and authors. In addition, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) also presented its “corrective measures” to narrow down section 52(1)(i) of the
Copyright Act – the copyright exception that had been the bone of contention in
the <a class="external-link" href="https://eifl.net/blogs/course-packs-education-ruled-legal-india">DU photocopying case</a>. They included 1) permitting only the making of print
copies of literary works which are available in libraries at government-owned
educational institutions, to “avoid any commercial gains from the work of
publishers”; 2) quantitatively restricting the reproduction (in cases of books)
to ten percent of the total number of pages of the book; and alarmingly also 3)
barring the storage of material in the form of scanned or digital formats.</p>
<div>
The Committee further expressed its concerns about the conflict between
copyright holders and educational institutions caused by section 52(1)
of the Act. Section 52(1) is the provision that contains limitations and exceptions. The Committee suggested that the protection of books and works be
balanced against public accessibility of works at an affordable rate. In its
recommendation, it directed the DPIIT to amend section 52(1) to ‘facilitate’ a
fair and equitable ecosystem of literary culture. The measures suggested are: <br /><br /></div>
<ul><li>Permitting the copying of works only in government-owned educational institutions and storing it in libraries
for easy access to students; </li><li>
Imposing
limitations on unrestricted copying of books and literary works and storage of copied
works in digital formats;</li><li>
Promotion of
establishing of community libraries and upgrading existing libraries in the country
for easy access to works of foreign publishers which are exorbitantly priced
and difficult to access;</li><li>National
Mission on Library, a venture of Central Government to strengthen the library
system, should be implemented at the earliest;</li><li>
DPIIT
to undertake a study of the Berne Convention to inform the copyright regime,
and the Berne Convention should be referred to in matters of limitations and
exceptions in the country.</li></ul>
<div> </div>
<p>Separately,
the report also makes certain recommendations in respect of registration of
copyright societies and treating internet/ digital streaming platforms as broadcasters
for purposes of section 31D license.</p>
<p>The recommendations to narrow copyright exceptions and limit digital uses of works are very concerning. It appears that the recommendations shift the financial burden of
ensuring access to educational material on public libraries, yet at the same
time, restrict the permissible uses of works in libraries.</p>
<p>Since
2020, both government and Parliament have conducted separate consultations on
the IPR regime without hearing all stakeholders. In the case of the consultation
exercise initiated by DPIIT, details still have not been made public. In the
Parliament’s case, it is concerning that key stakeholders and beneficiaries on education and research such as institutions, libraries, teachers, researchers etc. have not been consulted. Neither the substantive part nor the minutes discuss any research or evidence on the issues. As <a class="external-link" href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/a-parliamentary-standing-committee-report-that-challenges-the-fine-balances-within-the-ip-system">noted </a>by
Prof. Scaria, this is hardly a balanced exercise and the report is nowhere
close to the level of rigor and depth expected from a Parliamentary Standing
Committee.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/standing-committees-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLibrariesParliamentLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-07-28T09:31:53ZBlog EntryGlobal Civil Society Coalition launches website to promote Access to Knowledge
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge
<b></b>
<p>CIS is a part of a global civil society coalition that is working to promote access to, and use of, knowledge - the Access to Knowledge or A2K coalition. <br /><br />Earlier this week, the coalition launched a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/">website</a> articulating its mission and recommendations to reform copyright systems for the benefit of education, research, and cultural heritage. <br /><br />Copyright systems pose serious obstacles to quality teaching and learning, researchers’ ability to receive and impart information and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and preservation and access of cultural and scientific heritage. The website presents evidence and legal solutions, with a focus on the digital and online dimension to the issues. Three global maps also show the (limited) extent to which copyright limitations and exceptions across the world support online education, text and data mining, and preservation, highlighting the need for global legal eform. <br /><br />The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.a2k-coalition.org/about/">members of the A2K coalition</a> represent a diverse set of voices such as educators, researchers, students, libraries, archives, museums, other knowledge users and creative communities around the globe. In Asia-pacific, we have ourselves and Open Access India as members presently. <strong>We invite organizations who share a similar vision of a fair and balanced copyright system to join the coalition.</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-civil-society-coalition-launches-website-to-promote-access-to-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledgemovements2022-10-12T12:05:03ZBlog Entry2015 USTR Report: Old Wine in New Bottle
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle
<b>Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) undertakes an elaborate exercise to castigate countries' domestic intellectual property (IP) law and policy. The criticisms and recommendations are presented in a document called the Special 301 Report. This year's edition puts India on the Priority Watch List for the twenty-sixth time in a row. Below, I rebut the report's prejudicial claims and demands, and argue that the report puts free speech, innovation and public interest in jeopardy. </b>
<p> </p>
<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">Keeping
in tradition </a>, the
2015 report yet again exposes US' hypocrisy by faithfully serving Hollywood and Big Pharma. In the past, countries
such as Israel and Canada have
publicly rejected the USTR's findings and derided the US for
unwarranted interference with domestic law and policy. Last year,
India too had refused to cooperate with a USTR initiated unilateral
investigation (Out of Cycle review) of its IP regime because the
investigation violated international law.
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a hard-hitting response
to the report. It draws <a href="https://www.eff.org/special-404">case
studies of countries</a>
where overbroad IP law has affected public interest, free speech and
innovation. For instance, it mentions how Colombia's 'reformed'
copyright law has become a travesty. Colombia introduced extreme
enforcement and harsh criminal sanctions for unauthorised sharing of
works at the behest of the US. Last year, news surfaced that a
Colombian biodiversity researcher faced upto eight years in prison
for sharing an academic article on Scribd. Any balanced IP regime
(including India) permits such use of copyrighted works under the
fair use principle, however, Colombia's narrow fair use provision has
led to a situation where citizens now face prison for ordinary use of
academic works.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p>This
year the Special 301 Report in its section on India approves the
Prime Minister's statements to align IP law with international
standards, which is a cause for concern. Firstly, what are these
“international standards” that both US and India refer to
exactly? The most comprehensive international agreement on IP that
binds 160 member nations is the WTO Agreement on Trade related
aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement). Ergo, this
agreement would qualify as the most accepted “international
standard”, which India already complies with. Secondly, the TRIPS
Agreement sets down certain <em>global</em>
<em>minimum</em>
standards for protecting and enforcing IP, simultaneously providing
countries a certain degree of flexibility. However, the US has
consistently pushed India to enact tougher provisions known as TRIPS
Plus provisions. This is reflected in the report as well. Legally
speaking, under international law India is not obligated to accede to
such demands, and it should not if it wants a balanced IP regime to
protect and serve the interests both of rights holders and its
citizens.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report shamelessly aligns its concerns with the financial interests
of foreign rights holders and American companies. It erroneously
projects IP as a tool to only maximise revenues, agnostic to public
interest. While
IP rights are temporary monopolies, they also are a tool to ensure
innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further
access to knowledge. It
is well established that flexible IP laws <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">enable
access to knowledge and promote innovation</a>.
Such a flexible regime is critical to developing countries like
India. The USTR
conveniently forgets that lax
IP law and enforcement for a large part of the 19th century helped
the US to accelerate into an economic powerhouse and a front-runner
in innovation. It also
brazenly threatens to impose unilateral sanctions against a country
designated as a Priority Foreign Country on the list. This treatment
is usually reserved for the worst offender on the list. Such
unilateral threats and sanctions are again a direct violation of
international law.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Unsurprisingly,
the report is critical of India's under-enforcement of copyright laws
and the impact of patent law on pharmaceuticals. It demands a
specific legislation to counter camcording and video piracy. The
prospective legislation is unnecessary because all movie theatres in
India prohibit camcorders and the prevailing Copyright Act, 1957
contains penalties to punish offenders. Instead of creating new
offences, we should re-evaluate the need of existing offences. <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">For
instance, copyright infringement on non-commercial scales should not
be a criminal offence at all</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">.</a>
Instead, the law should provide convenient and affordable access to
such works to counter petty infringement.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">India
is home to the world's largest apothecary. The Indian pharmaceutical
and medical device industry provides affordable healthcare to the
citizens, and also exports drugs to countries in need. In fact, the
compulsory licensing mechanism has ensured affordable access to life
saving liver and kidney drugs in India. The report comments on the
undesirability of section 3(d) and the compulsory licensing mechanism
in Indian patent law. With respect to section 3(d), the US wishes
India to to change its patent law to enable large pharma companies to
patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better. This
alarmist outlook smacks of hypocrisy because the US, in fact, has a
higher rate of patent invalidation and compulsory license grants! It
also demands data exclusivity – which would extend proprietary
rights to patentees over government mandated drug data, and would be
detrimental to the local pharma industry. Further, the report states
that the Indian system is biased against enforcement of foreign
patent rights holders - which is mere speculation. T<a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/04/modi-shames-india-calls-patent-laws-under-developed.html">here
is no evidence to draw such a conclusion.</a>
The claims relating to localisation trends in pharma are half- baked
and speculative again.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report observes that at the UNFCCC negotiations, India recognised
patents as an obstacle to dissemination of climate change
technologies. It wishes India understood the critical role of patent
protection and competitiveness to ensure innovation, which is a
flawed co-relation. While strong IP rights may protect inventors
against infringement and provide return on investment, however,
<a href="https://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/wgpark/upload/Intellectual-Property-Rights.pdf">stronger
IP rights also raise the cost of innovation by raising the price of
technological inputs into innovation and lower the frequency of
innovation.</a></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">As
far as the issue of counterfeit medicines is concerned, a better
remedy lies in health safety laws and consumer laws, than the
trademark law. The report also approves of state legislatures'
version of the Goondas Act. These Acts <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">provide
for detainment of criminals and lumpen elements in society,</a>
and with recent amendments have expanded to include video pirates and
digital offenders. Karnataka's Goonda Act <a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">enabling
preventive detention violates </a><a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">constitutional rights</a>.
While the Sixth Amendment to the United States Bill of rights
protects offenders against preventive detention, the US has no qualms
about approving such unconstitutional procedures in India.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
arguments above underscore the irrelevance of the report. The Prime
Minister may have made appeasing statements to the USA, however, in a
welcome development Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sithraman
in response to the report stated <em>“I</em><em>ndia
is fully aligned with international intellectual property rights
standards and "there is no need for anyone to question us."”
</em>Our
IP
regime with its inherent flexibilities should be preserved and not
sacrificed at the altar of US' business interests. Using
compulsory licensing across sectors would indeed accelerate
technology transfer and diminish initial capex for manufacturers, a
move promoted by the National Manufacturing Policy. The ambitious
Make in India and Digital India campaigns are set to suffer if India
incorporates TRIPS plus standards into its IP regime. The <a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">government
supports opennes</a><a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">s</a>
and has implemented policies mandating use of open standards and open
source software as a part of the Digital India campaign. India should
not let foreign hands dictate its IPR Policy, and proceed to develop
a policy
which is informed by broader principles of fairness and equity,
balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and
exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and
access to medicines.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsHomepageLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2015-06-16T10:24:49ZBlog Entry37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28. </b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society
organisation based in India working on issues of openness and
access to knowledge, amongst others.</p>
<p>India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on
and promoting access to research, data, archival material,
educational material, and developing material to benefit persons
with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an
excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with
various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate
concrete principles that should inform the international legal
instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.</p>
<p>To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and
discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to
make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the
secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society
to identify and invite such community leaders.</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-11-29T10:20:13ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Draft Action Plan for Libraries, Archives and Museums
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Draft Action Plan on advancing limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives and Museums on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>Very recently we concluded a qualitative study on archives in
India to examine how limitations and exceptions help them in achieving their
mission.</p>
<p>We found that the Indian Act goes to the extent of making an
exception for preservation for libraries.
To make up for unintended gaps in this clause, Indian archives and
museums owing to overlapping functions with libraries use this exception within
limits – which counts as an ‘implied’ application of the exception, as reported
by the ex- registar of the Indian Copyright Office in 2010 to WIPO. Undeniably,
an institutional approach has created unintended barriers for other
institutions performing the exact same function.</p>
<p>The draft action plan adopts a similar institutional
approach in its three different tracks for libraries, archives and museums. As
many of the core functions of these institutions overlap, and indeed they may
be an archive housed in a library or vice-a-versa, we must change our approach
to focus on the functions and not the formal identification of such
institutions.</p>
<p>Hence, I submit that the draft action plan be suitably
amended to reflect a purposive approach to drafting this treaty, and not create
artificial distinctions between institutions that do not reflect reality.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:47:15ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions agenda on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>As we move forward on this agenda, we believe that for a
true balance to be realised, the rights of all users of copyrighted works will
have to be treated on par with those of the rightholders for purposes of
access to knowledge. We are disappointed
with the state of the limitations and exceptions in the broadcast treaty, that
made some progress yesterday (in terms of increasing rights).</p>
<p>Further, as we have submitted earlier, it is our belief that
the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the
opportunities presented by new information and communication technologies. We
reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area - which
should also facilitate smooth cross border exchange of knowledge.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:43:08ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 4, May 31. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>We have concerns about the plan’s focus on MOOCs and distance
learning initiatives. Although they are related to increasing access to education,
these initiatives are hardly a substitute for classroom learning – and the
primary objective of the treaty should be to improve such classroom teaching,
especially for developing countries where ICT penetration remains quite low.
Unless the plan also chooses to develop Open Educational Resources as a
priority in connection with MOOCs and distance learning initiatives, we suggest
that this item in the plan be re-examined in light of other more beneficial
action items.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:46:45ZBlog Entry35th SCCR: CIS' Question to Dr. Rostama on her Study on the Impact of the Digital Environment on Copyright Legislation
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, posed this question on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Rostamma.</p>
<p>My question relates to provisions allowing reverse
engineering of computer programmes. You mentioned that 81% of member states (with the scope of your study)
have exceptions for compilation and interoperability of computer programmes.</p>
<p>Can you comment, qualitatively, on how open/ strict you have
found the limitations and exceptions to be in your study? Is there a member
state that stands out in its treatment of limitations and exceptions for
computer programmers, and/or users of such digital objects?</p>
<p><strong>Answer: I would not like to make any
qualitative comments.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Read Dr. Rostamma's study <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_35/sccr_35_4.pdf">here</a></em>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-19T07:50:49ZBlog Entry 35th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 15 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society, in agreement among
others, believes that an international binding instrument to govern exceptions
and limitations for libraries and archives is critical.</p>
<p>In several countries, their set of limitations and exceptions
do not serve all intended beneficiaries in a comparably equal manner. For
example, for the work of archives in India, there is very little that allows
such institutions to do in terms of making copies for preservation and
noncommercial dissemination. India, like many other countries here has a rich
cultural heritage – and doing any activities with old audiovisual material
involves identifying rightholders and clearing rights connected to orphan works and traditional
cultural expressions as well. Imagine the onerous task of an archive of
clearing all these rights in connection with appropriate agencies, and of
course clearing additional permissions from authors and performers. In our research, we discovered that most archives in India miserably fail on this front, causing valuable material
being locked in storage rooms for decades.</p>
<p>Needless to say, accessibility to this national wealth of knowledge
in archives also supports the mission of libraries, museums and educational
institutions and researchers.</p>
<p>So Mr. Chair, we strongly believe that an update to the
international copyright system via a binding instrument would serve many
countries well. It would empower all countries to fill in such deficiencies in
relation to libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, museums
and persons with disabilities.</p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOArchivesAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-15T13:35:02ZBlog Entry35th SCCR: CIS Statement on GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>We would like to reiterate the importance of GRULAC Proposal
for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit
organisation in India that undertakes research on internet and digital
technologies from an academic and policy perspective.</p>
<p>In an environment of monopolies controlling the distribution
of digital goods and services, which connect users and creators, such a
comprehensive study assumes significant importance, especially for creators in the
global south.</p>
<p>We are especially concerned with the methods by which platform
intermediaries are enforcing their private IP rules on creators worldwide,
and if there are fair systems in place to address takedown, and the subsequent restoration
of works unfairly taken down from their platforms. It must be noted that there
is a serious lack of transparency as far as the conduct of such intermediaries
go, and often actions are taken without appropriate justification/explanation.</p>
<p>It is equally important that we continue to build on limitations
and exceptions for libraries, museums, archives, educational institutions,
researchers, and users’ in the digital environment.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-17T10:03:21ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Observers made the following statements on discussion around limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.communia-association.org/">Communia: <br /></a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity
to address for the limitations and exceptions for educational purposes. I would
like to give a brief statement that by saying Professor Seng's studies,
national countries had exceptions narrowly in various ways the copyright works
of educational activities. These narrow exceptions prevent certain educational
practices such as the quotation of entire image in a school presentation. When
it comes to modern educational practices, namely those that occur in digital
and online teaching environments, the legal standing is even more problematic.
Indeed, certain acts which teachers are allowed to perform in face-to-face
teaching may not be permitted in digital and online contexts. For instance, in
the Netherlands, the law is clear that a teacher can show a movie from a DVD in
class, but if the same teacher wants to show a video from a free publicly
accessible website, it seems that you'll need to be -- you will not be able to
do it. This is due either to inappropriate legislative techniques or to
domestic policy decisions. In any case, what is certain is cross-border
educational uses are compromised at the outset due to the current national
copyright laws, including within regions that enjoy a high level of
harmonization, such as the European Union. Therefore, continue to discuss this
issue in the forum which we will lead toward from an internationally binding
instrument as mandated by the General Assembly 2017 seems essential. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/">International Federation of Journalists:</a></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon. We've already introduced
ourselves. All these works are and remain one of the key raw materials for
education. The international federation of journalists deeply regrets the
educational and research institutions underfunded. No one is proposing,
however, as far as I'm aware, that schools and colleges should get free
electricity or free phone calls. Here, most clearly of all, the solution is
collective licensing through collective management organizations that are
democratically controlled by the rights holders they represent. There is a
wealth of misunderstanding of the issues. I take as one example the very first
statement on a pro education site and the magic of Internet indexing may enable
you to identify it, are which demonstrates how ill thought out the costs of
education can be, not withstanding the previous. This is addressed to the
European Union. It says, quotes, we want you to have the freedom to teach
without breaking the law. Good. Quotes, before teaching her students about how
representations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet have changed through the
ages, a teacher may have to ask permission from the rights holders of every
movie she wants to screen in class, unquote. It says, this is -- we want to
relieve educators from this impossible task, but I'm aware of nowhere in the
European Union and few countries in the -- what we're pleased to call the more
advanced economies where this is an impossible task. The school just pays for a
license from a collecting society and goes ahead with no further
administration. In my home country, United Kingdom, the collecting societies
are working successfully on streamlining the system of licensing and making it
more efficient in time and cash. Personally, I do recognize that some
categories of textbooks are overpriced...(Speaker went over time and was asked to stop).</p>
<p><strong>International Authors Federation:</strong></p>
<p>Thank you very much. As this is the first
time the International Office Forum has taken the floor this session, we'd like
to congratulate you, Chair, and your vice chairs on your election and thank the
Secretariat on their work. The international authors forum represents authors
from the text, screenwriting, and visual arts sectors and their interests in
copyright, as members of 60 organizations representing well over 600,000
authors worldwide. In ran increasingly homogenized world, cultural diversity is
important, authors maintain that in digital arts, literatures, language, and
music. It is the authors works being considered in the proposals being discussed
at WIPO. There are individual authors whose rights are involved in all
countries. Those rights must be given primary consideration. They need fair
remuneration if they are to continue the work everybody wants access to.
Without payment, they will not be able to continue to create. The diversity and
quality of content will suffer and the quantity of works produce produced will
be limited. We believe that there are already international copyright
provisions in place that work well to enable the development of licensing
frameworks, which enable access, including cross-border access provision
through educational institutions and ensure fair payment. Authors believe that
these existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility for countries
represented at WIPO to continue to work towards national solutions, such as
licensing frameworks, which can be developed according to local needs. Thank
you for your time.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Corporacion Innovarte:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair. The study of
exceptions for educational limitations in current legislation shows that there
is a fragmentation, that it's not appropriate to the countries, and very often
this is an insolvable problem for international and learning cooperation in the
area of communication. In order to overcome these, we think it's ins dispensable
to have an international agreement which will enable us to have a minimum of
common exceptions and limitations which will make it possible to have
compatible roles for cross-border use of educational resources. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pijip.org/">Programme on Information Justice and IP:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. You and I are from countries that have educational exceptions that
are open to the use of any work, for any education related activity or
purpose, and by any user — subject to a fairness test that takes into
account the rights of authors and rights holders. This openness in the exceptions environment enables innovations that
promote access to learning materials, including through new technologies
and over the internet. Tomorrow at a side meeting over lunch, Communia and American
University will be presenting the outcomes of different research
projects that examine the operation of user rights in practice. That
research shows that wealthy countries are developing openness in these
factors much more quickly and thoroughly than poorer countries
currently. But the research also shows that this is not a developing
country problem alone. Many wealthy countries as well lack exceptions
that allow such basic practices as showing a movie, streaming a video or
performing a play in a classroom setting. These problems are compounded
when we deliver educational products across borders through distance
learning. A lack of harmonization on these issues will produce a race to the
bottom where teachers like myself are forced to not deliver the best
materials possible for our students because of the lack of rights to do
so in some countries.I would encourage the process going forward to focus on the value of educational exceptions that<br />
cover all:</p>
<ul><li>Works,</li><li>Apply to all users, and that</li><li>Extend to a full range of activities</li></ul>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-05-30T05:51:42ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities
<b>At the 29th session of WIPO's SCCR, the Chair, Martin Moscoso, requested NGOs to send in their statements on limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research institutions and persons with disabilities in writing, to be placed on the record. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent in this written statement.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As we have always maintained in the past sessions of this Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society strongly believes that everyone, regardless of borders and barriers, either physical, or those created by time, distance and costs should have access to knowledge and education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To that end, we strongly support the proposal made by India, earlier, on continuing constructive work in this area. We also welcome the suggestion by the Indian delegation on a synthesis of these issues (facilitated by an expert, through the Chair), so that we can have a constructive discussion on these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we are very mindful of the fact that there exists a very real, very demonstrable need for limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions and also for the benefit of persons with disabilities. There is also an equally crucial need to ensure that these limitations and exceptions are open ended and are appropriate for the digital environment; a conversation we believe that is imperative for Member Nations to take forward, definitely more so than one around granting a 'para-copyright' for organizations that already enjoy a great deal of protection under existing treaties, and are far less vulnerable than beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We thank the United States of America for their document- SCCR/27/8 on the Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. We appreciate the recognition of the copyright system in the dissemination of works of authorship as well as the critical role that it plays in the promotion of educational, teaching and research objectives. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of a balance of rights and exceptions and limitations sustaining the role and activities of educational, teaching and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, we do believe that for a true balance to be achieved between rights and limitations and exceptions, the rights of the users of copyrighted works for the purposes of access to knowledge will have to be treated on par with those of the rights holders themselves. We believe that for this to be possible, measures will have to be taken to ensure international interoperability of limitations and exceptions and international standards suitable to address emerging and present issues of the digital environment will have to be developed. As we have submitted before this Committee earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. Mr. Chair, we reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area, that will facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a first step towards this end, we urge Member States to collaborate on and engage in substantive discussions building on existing Working Documents presently before this Committee. We look forward to an engaging discussion and providing all our complete support as we move forward on this very important agenda item.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-20T13:40:19ZBlog Entry