The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1381 to 1395.
ಸೃಜನಶೀಲತೆಗೆ ಸಂದ ಗೌರವ
https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act
<b>ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಆವಿಷ್ಕಾರಗಳು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ` ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಅದರ ಮಾಮೂಲು ಅರ್ಥದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿವೆ. ತಡವಾಗಿಯಾದರೂ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಸತ್ತು `ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ`ದ ಹೊಸ ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆಯೊಂದನ್ನು ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸಿದೆ. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://prajavani.net/include/story.php?news=561&section=51&menuid=15">The article was published by Prajavani on June 9, 2012</a></p>
<p>ಹಲವು ಧನಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಕೆಲವು ಸಂಶಯಗಳಿನ್ನೂ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೃತಿ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಹೊಸ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿವಿಧ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳ ತಜ್ಞರಿಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್) ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ ಹಿಂದಿಯ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರ ಹಾಗೂ ಬರಹಗಾರ ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ಚಿತ್ರ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಷ್ಟ- ಕಾರ್ಪಣ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆಕ್ರೋಶದಿಂದ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ರಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇತಿಹಾಸ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸಾಹಿತಿಗಳು, ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ ಇಳಿಗಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಂಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲುವಾಗ ಅವರ ದನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಷಾದವಿತ್ತು.<br /><br />ತಮ್ಮ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಕ್ಕು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದೇ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಕಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ. ಗೌರವಧನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಯಾವುದೇ ಲಾಭ ಇವರಿಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಈ ವಿಚಾರ ಹೇಳುವಾಗ `ಆವಾರಾ`, `420`ಯಂತಹ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಶೈಲೇಂದ್ರ ಅವರಿಗೆ ವೃದ್ಧಾಪ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಔಷಧಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡಲು ಹಣ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದುದು, `ಸೀತಾ ಔರ್ ಗೀತಾ` ಹಾಗೂ `ಸತ್ತೆ ಪೇ ಸತ್ತಾ` ಚಿತ್ರಗಳ ಕಥೆ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದ ಸತೀಶ್ ಭಟ್ನಾಗರ್ ಅನುಭವಿಸಿದ ಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.<br /><br />ಬರಹಗಾರರು, ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರನ್ನು ದುಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ತಳ್ಳಿ, ಕೇವಲ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಜೇಬು ತುಂಬಿಸುವ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅಸಮಾಧಾನವಿತ್ತು. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಸುಧಾರಿಸಲು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತರುವುದು ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದರು.<br /><br />ಜಾವೇದ್ ಅಖ್ತರ್ ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಲೋಕಸಭೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ `ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಸೂದೆ 2012`ಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಪಕ್ಷಭೇದ ಮರೆತು ಸರ್ವಾನುಮತದಿಂದ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ ಕಾಣುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ` ಇದು ಬರಹಗಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ` ಎಂದು ಬಣ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.</p>
<p>ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಚಾರ ಬಂದಾಗ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಹತ್ವದ್ದು ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಅನುಮಾನವೂ ಬೇಡ. ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕುರಿತು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದನ್ನು ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ ಜಯ ಎಂದೇ ವರ್ಣಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.<br /> <br />ಆದರೆ, ಕೃತಿಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ವಿಸ್ತೃತವಾದ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಈ ಜಯಘೋಷಗಳ ಅಬ್ಬರದ ನಡುವೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಯಾರ ಕಣ್ಣಿಗೂ, ಕಿವಿಗೂ ಬೀಳದೇ ಹೋಗುವ ಅಪಾಯವೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವು ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳಾಗಿವೆ ನಿಜ. ಜ್ಞಾನ, ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದಂತಹ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ದಕ್ಕಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಆಶಯ ಹೊಂದಿರುವವರನ್ನು ಚಿಂತೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಿಂತನೆಗೆ ದೂಡುವ ಅಂಶಗಳೂ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಡಕವಾಗಿವೆ.<br /><br />ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸೋಣ. ಚಿತ್ರೋದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕಲಾವಿದರೆಲ್ಲ ಹಣದ ಥೈಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಇರಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಸತ್ಯ. ಈ ಕಲಾವಿದರೊಂದಿಗಿನ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳು ಸಹ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಮೂಗಿನ ನೇರಕ್ಕೆ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕಟು ಸತ್ಯ.<br /><br />ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿ, ಅದು ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜನೆ, ಗೀತೆ, ಬರಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಅದನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಅದರ ಮಾಲೀಕನಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದೇ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ಕಲಾವಿದ ಅಥವಾ ಬರಹಗಾರ ತನ್ನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಮೂರನೆಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಅವಕಾಶವನ್ನೂ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂತಹ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /><br />ಎಲ್ಲ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಿಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು (ವರ್ತಮಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ) ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿದವರು ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನೂ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.</p>
<p>ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಬೆಳೆದಂತೆಲ್ಲ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ (ವಿಡಿಯೋ, ಡಿವಿಡಿ, ಸ್ಯಾಟ್ಲೈಟ್, ಎಂಪಿ ತ್ರಿ, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ರಿಂಗ್ ಟೋನ್ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ). ಈ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮಾಲಿಕರ (ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು) ಬೊಕ್ಕಸ ತುಂಬುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಅವರು ಈ ಆದಾಯವನ್ನು ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಿಯಮ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇಲ್ಲ.<br /> <br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ, ಎರಡು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಲೋಪದೋಷ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವಂತಿದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೃತಿಯ ಮೇಲಿನ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಮೊದಲನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ.<br /><br />ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಡುಗಳ ಗೀತ ರಚನೆಕಾರರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಗೀತಗಾರರಿಗೆ ಈ ಹಾಡನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ, ಅಂದರೆ ಚಿತ್ರಮಂದಿರದ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಇತರ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಗೌರವಧನ ನೀಡಬೇಕು (ಅವರ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧ ವಾರಸುದಾರರು ಅಥವಾ ಕೃತಿ ರಚನೆಕಾರರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಬಹುದು) ಎಂಬುದು ಎರಡನೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ. ಕೃತಿಯನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿದವರಿಗೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಸಂಯೋಜಕರಿಗೆ ಎರಡನೇ ಹಂತದ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಹಾಗೂ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನೆರವಾಗುವ ಕ್ರಾಂತಿಕಾರಿ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಇದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಶಯವಿಲ್ಲ.</p>
<p>ಆದರೆ, ಚಿತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಪಕರು ಸಿಟ್ಟಿನಿಂದ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾದ ಮಂಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಚಿತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಣ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರಿಸ್ಕ್ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿ ಚಿತ್ರದಿಂದ ಬರುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಲಾಭಗಳನ್ನು ತಮಗೇ ನೀಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಾದರೂ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಗೊಂದಲಗಳು ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾದಂತಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನಗೊಳ್ಳಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಕಾದು ನೋಡಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಗುತ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಕೋರ್ಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯೂ ಇದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯನ್ನೇ ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸುವ ಯತ್ನಗಳು ನಡೆದರೂ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.<br /><br />ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಹುಜನರಿಗೆ ಉಪಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮಹತ್ವದ ಅಂಶವೆಂದರೆ ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಸೌಂಡ್ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಬಗೆಯ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ ಅಡಿ ತಂದಿರುವುದು. (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಆ ಮೂಲ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದ ಭಾಗ ಉದ್ಧರಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ `ಫೇರ್ ಯೂಸ್` ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.)<br /><br />ಇಂದಿನ ಯುಟ್ಯೂಬ್ ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಕುಳಿತು ರಿಮಿಕ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ತಮ್ಮ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಅಪ್ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ. ಹವ್ಯಾಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯಚಿತ್ರ ತಯಾರಕರು ಮತ್ಯಾವುದೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಕೆಲ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಚಿತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸಿದ್ದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮ ಎದುರಿಸುವ ಭೀತಿ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.<br /> <br />ಈಗ ತಂದಿರುವ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಯಿಂದ ಈ ಭಯ ನಿವಾರಣೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ, ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಬಳಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಅಥವಾ ಸಂಗೀತದ ಕ್ಲಿಪಿಂಗ್ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಲಾಭ ರಹಿತವಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರುವವವರಿಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲಕರವಾಗುವ ಒಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. ಈ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಪ್ರೋಗ್ರಾಂ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಅಥವಾ ಸಿನಿಮಾದ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಕೊಡಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /><br />ಈಗ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾಗತಾರ್ಹವಲ್ಲದ ಕೆಲ ವಿಚಾರಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸೋಣ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಗೀತ ರೆಕಾರ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ಆದ ಐದು ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೆ ಅದರ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್` (ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ ಅಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗೀತೆಯನ್ನು ಅದೇ ಟ್ಯೂನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲ ಗಾಯಕರ ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರ ಬಳಿ ಹಾಡಿಸುವುದು) ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಜನಪ್ರಿಯ ಗೀತೆಗಳ ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್ಗಳ ಆಧರಿಸಿಯೇ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮ ಬದುಕಿದೆ, ಬೆಳೆದಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಮತ್ಯಾರದೋ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಹಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅಕ್ರಮ ಮಾರ್ಗದಂತೆ `ಕವರ್ ವರ್ಷನ್`ಗಳು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸಂಗೀತ ಉದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೋ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ, ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯವನ್ನು ಇದು ಮುರಿದಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನಾವು ಮರೆಯಬಾರದು.<br /><br />ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯ (ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ) ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿಯನ್ನೂ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಪೊ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಪೊ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ ಹಾಗೂ ಧ್ವನಿ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ (ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ 1996ರಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಿರುವ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ) ಧಾಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.<br /> <br />ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ ಅಂದರೆ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾರೂ ಕಳವು, ನಕಲು ಮಾಡದಂತೆ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಕೀಲಿ ಹಾಕುವುದು. ಈ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಕೀಲಿಯನ್ನು ಮುರಿದು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ಈಗ ಅಪರಾಧ. ಆದರೆ, ಡಬ್ಲುಸಿಟಿ ಅಥವಾ ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿಗೆ ಭಾರತ ಇನ್ನೂ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಅನ್ನು ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಇತ್ತೆ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಏಳುತ್ತದೆ. <br /><br />ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ ಮೇಲೂ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶಂಸಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಅಂಶವಿದೆ. `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಮೇಲೆ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರಲಾದ ಕಾನೂನು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂಪಿಸಲಾದ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗಿಂತ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮವಾಗಿದೆ. ಭವಿಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಒಪ್ಪಂದಗಳಾದ `ವಿಪೊ` ಮತ್ತು `ಡಬ್ಲುಪಿಪಿಟಿ`ಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಬಂದೇ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ.</p>
<p>ಆಗ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಚೌಕಾಸಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒತ್ತಡ ಬರುವ ಮುನ್ನವೇ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಬಲ್ಲ `ಡಿಆರ್ಎಂ` ಕಾನೂನು ರೂಪಿಸುವ ದೂರದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಾಣ್ಮೆಯನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ನೀತಿ ನಿರೂಪಕರು ಈಗ ತೋರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.<br /><br />ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರಿಗೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಲಾಭ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಹಾಗೂ ಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮುಕ್ತ ಬಳಕೆಯ ಅವಕಾಶ ಇವೆರಡರ ನಡುವೆ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಸಾಧಿಸುವಂತೆ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಹಾಲಿವುಡ್ ಉದ್ಯಮದ ಅಗಾಧ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯಿಂದ ಕಾಲಾಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಸಮತೋಲನ ಹಕ್ಕುಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಪಡೆದ ಮಾಲೀಕರತ್ತ ವಾಲಿತ್ತು.<br /> <br />ಕೃತಿಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಲೆಕ್ಕಕ್ಕೇ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಅಸಮತೋಲನ ನಿವಾರಿಸುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವರಿಗೂ ಒಳಿತಾಗುವಂತೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ತಂದಿದೆ. ಮುಂದಿನ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಕುರಿತು ವಿಶದವಾಗಿ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನಂತೆ ಒಕ್ಕೊರಲಿನಿಂದ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನ್ನು ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸೋಣ.</p>
<p>ಆಲ್ಟರ್ನೇಟಿವ್ ಲಾ ಫೋರಂನ ಸ್ಥಾಪಕರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬರಾದ ಲೇಖಕರು ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತಜ್ಞರು.</p>
<hr />
<p>
Read the English translation below:</p>
<h2>The pros and cons of the Copyright Amendment Act 2012</h2>
<p>In his passionate speech in debate on the Rajya Sabha the noted lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar highlighted the plight of a number of musicians, lyricists and film writers who despite having contributed to some of the most important films in Indian history remained in poverty since they did not receive any benefits by way of royalties for their work. Examples of artists who suffered in penury unable to even afford medicines range from Shailendra who gave us the lyrics for films like Awara and Shree 420 to writer Satish Bhatnagar who wrote ‘Seeta aur Geeta’ and ‘Satte pe Satta’. Akhtar argued that the copyright amendment was a necessary corrective to a system that had worked incredibly well for film producers at the cost of artists. It was not surprising then that the Copyright Amendment Act 2012 saw a surprising consensus from all the political parties in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and has been hailed as an amendment that restores rights to writers and musicians.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the Copyright Amendment 2011 is one of the most significant developments in copyright law and while the media attention has been on the victory of artists against film producers it is important to remember that the amendment itself covers a much wider gamut of issues which runs the risk of being lost in the euphoria of this victory. While there are many welcome changes that have been brought about by the Amendment, there are also many others which should give cause of concern for anyone interested in public interest issues of wider access to knowledge, culture and technology. Lets start with the good news first.</p>
<p>It is well known that artists working in the film industry have historically been at a significant disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with the film producers who control the money and consequently dictate the terms of contracts with people who contribute to the film. Even though copyright law says that the owner of copyright is the creator of the work there has always existed an exception which allows the creator to assign their rights to a third party. The assignment agreements are heavily tilted in favour of the producers and all rights in all mediums (present and future) are handed over to the producer. It is a common experience that the creators of copyright are rarely ever the owners of copyright. As the secondary market for films and music developed with each generation of technology (videos, DVD, Satelite, MP3s, mobile ring tones) the owners of content found a situation in which we saw an evergreening of their property guaranteeing an eternal source of revenue which they were not obliged to share with any of the contributors. The amendment seeks to correct this by bringing in two significant changes. Firstly it says that an assignment of rights shall only be for a medium of exploitation which was in existence at the time of the assignment. It also says that authors of a literary or musical work used in a film song lyrics shall have a right to receive royalties from the work if the work is used in any manner other than as a part of a film shown in a cinema hall (the right may be assigned only to legal heirs or to a collecting society).</p>
<p>There can be no arguing that this is a radical amendment that significantly alters the ability of creators to participate in the benefits of secondary markets and also increase their bargaining power. Film producers on the other hand are livid arguing that as the primary investors and risk takers in a film they should be entitled to all the benefits accruing from the film. While the amendment is very welcome it is not bereft of ambiguities and possible complications, and we have to wait and see how the law will now be enforced. It is also likely that there will be constitutional challenges on the grounds that this is in violation of freedom of contract and the right to trade, and possibly even attempts to subvert the law. But for the moment lets celebrate a very significant victory for creators.</p>
<p>Even as creators celebrate, we should also toast the amendment for its sensitive response to the demands made by the visually disabled community. Technology has bridged the incredible gap that existed for disabled people desiring to access books and other materials. Braille was a horribly expensive and archaic technology but screen reading software has made it possible for visually disabled people to convert books into digital formats which can be read through mobile phones, computers and digital tablets. But it was impossible to convert books without violating the rights of copyright owners since the right to make electronic versions of the book is their exclusive right. The Amendment now carves out an exception for people with disabilities to be able – as a matter of right- to create digital versions and Sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B now allow the creation of ‘any accessible format’ without needing to pay royalty.</p>
<p>Another very significant amendment is the extension of the fair use provision to all classes of works including films and sound recordings. In this era of youtube when people routinely create their own remixes, upload clips this is a very welcome amendment. Any amateur or documentary film maker will testify to the difficulty hat the face when they need to use music or video clips as a part of their films and they do so with the constant threat of being sued for copyright infringement. The amendment allows a person to use film and music clips for private or personal use including research, as well as for criticism or review of that work. It is to be noted that the word criticism has been interpreted by the courts to include the ability to create parodies of the original work. Other people who should welcome the act includes educational institutions and non profit libraries who are now allowed to rent or lend a lawfully acquired copy of a software program, music and films.</p>
<p>And now for some of the not so good news. The amendment makes it more difficult to create cover versions of songs and cover versions can now not be made for a period of five year form the time of the recording of the song. As is well known the Indian music industry has grown on the basis of the freedom to make cover versions. While cover versions may seem like an unfair way of benefiting form someone else’s creation the fact of the matter is that version recording has been one of the most significant ways in which the music industry was demonopolized. The Amendment also brings in Digital rights Management (DRM) to keep India in tune with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. DRM are essentially digital or technology locks that are used to protect content and the law now makes it an offence to circumvent any technology lock. It is questionable whether this is a desirable introduction. India is not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and hence there is no need to bring DRM into Indian law. Having said that one must also appreciate that the Indian law on DRM is perhaps one of the best in the world, and one can speculate that the law makers decided to bring in a home grown version more suited to Indian reality knowing that at some point if time there would be global pressure on Indian to sign onto the two treaties and then there would be less bargaining power in terms of the law that would have been introduced.</p>
<p>Copyright was always supposed to be balance between providing incentives to creators and ensuring that there was adequate public access to knowledge. Over the years the rise of media monopolies and the might of Hollywood effectively ensured that this balance tilted heavily in favour of rights owners against the interests of creators and the general public. The Copyright amendment demonstrates that when such imbalances threaten creativity and free speech it is incumbent on the government to respond with necessary and adequate measures that serve the greater good. There will be time in the coming future to discuss and debate the specific amendments in detail, but for now lets join the parliament in unanimously welcoming a much over due amendment to the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/pros-and-cons-of-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-18T11:22:07ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment: Bad, but Could Have Been Much Worse
https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment
<b>The changes to the Copyright Act protect the disabled - but are restrictive about cover versions and web freedom, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in the Business Standard on June 10, 2012.</b>
<p>When the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, was passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha on May 22, it meant that there was little reason for celebration, some not-so-great news, and a lot of pretty bad news.</p>
<p>The only real reason for unqualified celebration is the amendment’s introduction of a robust exception for the disabled. It is bleeding-edge policy formulation, as it is right up there alongside the Treaty for the Visually Impaired currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The Indian exception is more robust: first, it is disability-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses the needs of the print-impaired; and second, it is works-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses books and printed works. In brief, given the very limited circulation of copyrighted works amongst the disabled, they now can convert inaccessible works to accessible formats and share them with each other on a non-profit basis. No royalty needs to be paid to the rights-holders for this conversion and the resultant access. Other reasons to celebrate include the newly introduced exception for non-commercial lending and the extension of fair dealing (or fair use) to all works.</p>
<p>Now for some middling news. The Digital Rights Management provision makes it an offence punishable with a fine and a two-year jail term to circumvent “effective technological measures” (also called Technological Protection Measures) and remove “rights management information” (RMI). The provision protects public interest since it does not allow rights-holders to claim rights unavailable under copyright law, and does not prevent consumers and citizens from benefiting from the various fair dealing (or fair use) exceptions and limitations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the provision mandates onerous record-keeping for those providing circumvention technologies, and also does not insist that the rights-holder provide the means for circumvent when the consumer or citizen legitimately needs to do so.<br /><br />The first piece of bad news is that an inadequate “safe harbour” provision has been introduced for Internet intermediaries. Like the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act has also gotten the configuration of the intermediary liability regime wrong. This was the opportunity to finally protect common carriers, platforms for social media and commons-based peer-production (such as free software and open content). In short, search engines are finally legal in India, and so are ISPs, virtual private network providers and content delivery networks.<br /><br />But unfortunately, social media platforms such as Facebook and peer-production platforms like Wikipedia are not afforded sufficient immunity to thrive as real-time participatory platforms. The take-down procedure is designed to provide instant relief to rights-holders, as intermediaries are supposed to remove content immediately. They have the option of reinstating content if the take-down notice is not followed within three weeks by a court order. This mechanism will have a chilling effect on free speech — given that Indian internet service providers very obviously privilege the interests of intellectual property rights-holders over those of the ISPs’ customers — as most recently illustrated by their over-compliance with certain John Doe court orders emerging from the Madras High Court.</p>
<p>The second piece of bad news is the extension of the term of protection for photographs. It has gone from being “sixty years after publication” to “sixty years after the death of the photographer”. Sixty years from publication was already in excess of the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Now we are in excess of WIPO Copyright Treaty requirements, even though India is not a signatory. The possibility of grandchildren earning royalties does not serve as an incentive for shutterbugs to take more photos or better photos. It is not even clear if one can monetise the average photo after the first decade. Therefore, the global public domain has been substantially impoverished, without any evidence that this will make the photographers reciprocally wealthier.<br /><br />It does not stop there. In the age of hip-hop, trance, jhankar beats and turntables, one would have hoped that our law-makers would at least get the provision for “cover versions” or “remixes” right. Cover versions in India are doubly useful both in terms of aesthetics and profits — and yet the relevant provision can only be described as mediaeval. Cover versions can be produced only after a gap of five years; they have to be restricted to the same medium as the original; payment from them must be made in advance for 5,000 copies (should all those who sang commercially viable cover violations of “Kolaveri Di” be considered lawbreakers?); and there are strict limits on what are acceptable alterations to the original. The “alterations” have to be “reasonable” and “technically necessary”. Today, affordable yet sophisticated multimedia technologies allow teenagers to build professional sound recording studios in their bedrooms — and our government is seeking to restrict them to boring word-for-word and note-for-note covers.<br /><br />And it gets worse. Bowing to pressure from foreign publishers’ associations, the government deleted the “parallel importation” provision at the last minute. The inclusion of this provision would have made it clear that works reproduced with the rights-holders’ permission in other countries could be imported into India. Foreign publishers and their lobbyists went all-out with a propaganda campaign predicting a dystopia filled with pirated books, surplus books dumped from overseas and starving, uncompensated authors. Had our government not caved, this clarification in law would have gone a long way in dismantling distribution monopolies and made the market much more competitive. The resultant increase in choice and reduction in cost would have benefited everyone. Human Resources Development Minister Sibal promised both Houses during the passage of the amendment that he would revisit this, and let’s hope he does so — especially for our libraries and our second-hand book stores, and for the students and disabled amongst us.</p>
<p>The writer is at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. <a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunil-abraham-copyright-amendment-badcould-have-been-much-worse/476845/">Click</a> to read the original published by Business Standard.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment</a>
</p>
No publishersunilCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-15T12:29:39ZBlog EntryA Ludicrous Ban
https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban
<b>Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang have written an article for the Open Magazine about the bizarre ways in which the Internet is regulated in 21st century India. </b>
<p>Small acts can have outsize consequences. In 15th century England, Richard III lamented that for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. In 21st century India, the question is this: for want of copyright protection for a single film, will the whole Internet be lost? On 29 March 2012, the Madras High Court issued an order whose effect Internet users in the country are still reeling from. As we go to press, most Internet users in India are unable to access a number of popular websites that millions of people around the world use every day. These banned websites are not forums for human trafficking or illegal weapon sales, but merely extensions of ordinary human activity like learning, sharing and growing—activities that are particularly well facilitated by the Internet. That the websites have been banned is of great concern; that the order purportedly banning them, and its effect, are both inexplicable and badly understood is of greater concern still.</p>
<p>How did we get here?</p>
<p>These are the facts. Earlier in the year, a little-known Chennai firm called Copyright Labs filed a petition on behalf of RK Productions, seeking protection for their client’s upcoming release—the Tamil film 3—against copyright infringement on the Internet. The film had not opened to audiences yet; the petition sought pre-emptive protection. In response, the Madras High Court passed a ‘John Doe’ order—John Doe being American shorthand for the anonymous everyman—which has a wide, sweeping scope and is designed to protect against potential offences by necessarily nameless persons, or in other words, everyone. The order applied to several Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as the aforesaid nameless persons (the John Doe of India is, apparently, ‘Ashok Kumar’), binding them, and their heirs, assignees, representatives and the whole shebang, against infringing copyright in relation to the film on networks they administer.</p>
<p>In apparent compliance with the John Doe order, Indian ISPs reacted with obsequious haste, in singular—and totally arbitrary—fashion. Between them, they have blocked a range of torrent sites (like the Pirate Bay, which is always Target No. 1, regardless of the circumstances), a few video-sharing sites like Vimeo and DailyMotion, and for good measure, some unrelated and completely irrelevant websites such as Xmarks, which allows users to share and sync bookmarks, and Pastebin, a service to store text and code. The weirdest aspect of this countrywide clampdown on a large chunk of the Internet is that the Madras High Court order did not actually specify any websites to block at all. How—and <em>why</em>—the ISPs zeroed in on these particular entities remains a mystery.</p>
<p>The Pirate Bay certainly hosts large amounts of pirated material, but it is also in some part a way to distribute legitimate content legitimately; Vimeo, on the other hand, is the distribution channel of choice for independent films uploaded by the filmmakers themselves; Pastebin has strict policies that are respectful of copyright and is mostly used by free and open source developers to tweak and relay copyright-free software. The sweep of this clampdown by the ISPs defies logic by deeming <em>everything</em> illegal: the wedding video that we cherish and put up to share with our friends, the small, independently financed film we wish to distribute electronically, the piece of free and open source software we just improved upon and would like the world to know about. Luckily for us, any blocking action imposed by local ISPs can be easily subverted by going through a virtual private network—a proxy—and if you’d like to see just how easy and quick this is to execute, please go to http://anonymouse.org. You’re welcome.</p>
<p>But first, the law. There is some confusion as to whether blocking whole websites for copyright infringement is legally permissible, and the answer is mostly no—and partly yes. The procedure for blocking websites in India is governed by Section 69A of the Information Techno- logy Act 2000, as amended in 2008 (the IT Act). Section 69A of the IT Act gives the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of very specific circumstances, namely: a) in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of lndia, b) for the defence of India, c) for the security of the State, d) for friendly relations with foreign States, e) for public order, or f) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to the previous points. Failure to comply with a blocking order thus issued is punishable by imprisonment and fines.</p>
<p>Importantly, however, <em>neither</em> copyright infringement nor obscenity (the other popular trigger for censorious actions) is listed as grounds for which a website may be blocked. Sure, the IT Act has specific provisions that lay out the consequences of transmitting obscene material and the infringement of copyright, but being blocked is not one of them. On the basis of its powers under Section 69A(2), the government has laid out procedures for blocking websites and notified the Information Technology Rules, 2009 (with the ‘Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public’), as well as designated nodal officers who can receive these complaints under the Act.</p>
<p>Section 6 of these IT Rules lays out a clear procedure for initiating and implementing a block. The procedure not only involves a thorough examination of the claims, but also reiterates the grounds under which a request for a block might be permissible, namely, the conditions laid out in the IT Act. Section 7 of the same IT Rules lays out the procedure for examination of the request and places it in the hands of a committee; the procedure involves the participation of several high-ranking officials and outlines detailed steps, such as contacting the potentially offending parties and giving them time to respond or take action as appropriate, only after which blocking may be deployed if still necessary.</p>
<p>The law is clear that copyright infringement cannot be legitimate grounds for the blocking of a website. Section 79 of the IT Act, in fact, explicitly provides safe harbour for ISPs, though the controversial Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011, have made a mockery of this section. These Intermediary Rules are currently the subject of heated debate, with many civil society organisations and even some parliamentarians calling for them to be repealed. (You can learn more about the protests at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.it2011.in">www.it2011.in</a>).</p>
<p>As things stand, a copyright holder can ask for the removal of infringing content by sending a take-down notice under the provisions of the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, however flawed they are, or by asking for a John Doe order. A take-down notice is a complaint by the copyright holder to a website, indicating the specific uniform resource locator (URL) where the infringement is allegedly happening. It is a procedure further reinforced in the 2012 amendment to the Indian Copyright Act, which reiterates the rights of intermediaries, such as ISPs, to transmit any potentially infringing content until a take-down notice is sent and examined. A John Doe order, by its wide, sweeping nature, is normally exercised with the greatest caution, and only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. John Doe orders do not provide for public examination and discussion of claims; they do not allow any other side—other than the petitioning party—to state their case; and they can be badly misunderstood by the parties involved, as vividly demonstrated in this case.</p>
<p>In this case, both the petition and the order are questionable in several ways. The Tamil film 3—starring Dhanush and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajini- kanth’s daughter Aishwarya—is not exceptional. It is one of the hundreds of Tamil films made this year, following on from the thousands of Tamil films made thus far. There is no particular reason why this film alone is worthy of a John Doe order. Ironically, it is exceptional only in that until Copyright Labs’ petition, the film served as a working demonstration of the benefits of a free and open Internet: the reason we knew of the film was the massive publicity generated by the viral hit ‘Kolaveri Di’—a song whose popularity spiralled by being shared freely and widely, regardless of copyright ownership. In the case of ‘Kolaveri Di,’ the producers saw the piracy of the song as publicity, and encouraged it. Then, it would seem, they decided that any piracy of the film was, well, piracy—and decided to stop it in the most insensible and ruthless manner possible. And there you have it: not only can you now have your cake and eat it too, you can also smash it in the faces of millions of users with impunity.</p>
<p>Copyright Labs, the previously unknown firm in Chennai that acted for the producers of 3 appears to be run by one Harish Ram, whose Twitter feed covers the catastrophe in revealing detail. Facing the wrath of fellow tweeters who were outraged at their inability to access their favourite websites, his collected responses on the handle @harishramlh instructively outline the disastrous way by which the court order he wanted has been implemented. Harish claims that his firm was forced to take action because infringing sites “don’t respond”. His cry for help would be plausible except for one inconvenient detail: the film 3 released on 30 March 2012, and the John Doe order was obtained on 29 March 2012—a day <em>before</em> the film’s release. What kind of piracy could Copyright Labs have been trying to battle unsuccessfully prior to the film’s release? There are instances of pre-screening prints of a film making it to torrent sites, though these are rare. Most often, the piracy of a film only happens after its public release. At the time of Copyright Labs’ petition, it is likely that very few or no take-down notices had been served because very few or no infringing acts had been committed yet: this is the very basis of the petition and ensuing order. (A quick search on Pirate Bay confirms that the only torrents related to the film are dated after its release, and not before). A little while later, perhaps upon discovering that he too cannot watch his best friend’s wedding video on Vimeo, Harish casually tweets that he has “written to unblock the whole site and block only specific piracy links” and presto, Vimeo is unblocked.</p>
<p>Regulators, take note. This is how the Internet is governed in 21st century India: by the fluctuating whims of an excited young man in Chennai in possession of a court order he neither deserves nor understands.</p>
<p>Thanks to the fact that our governments and corporations are constantly fantasising about how to censor our Internet (and frequently succeeding), the people who bring us the Internet, the hapless ISPs, have been beaten into submission; they now jump to the mildest murmur of reproach with wildly imaginative and unduly overreaching reactions. The last thing we need in an online environment full of dirty tricks is more dirty tricks. If anyone in power has any desire to keep the Internet working for the millions of Indians who prosper by it, safe harbour for ISPs must be restored in the IT Act—and the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules must be repealed.</p>
<p>Our courts cannot be used as quack-houses to buy pills for imaginary problems. The copyright industry is not a sick patient; it’s just a hypochondriac. Films don’t fail because of piracy; they fail because they’re not worth watching. The most popular films in this country are also the most pirated, and yet they remain money-spinners. The real problem is the unbending inability of this industry to adjust to the world; to the Internet; to the life-changing technologies that human beings have witnessed and embraced and prospered by over the past two decades. Instead of responding to these changes creatively, film producers and music distributors think that digging in their heels and acting like petulant children is going to delude consumers into seeing them as something grander than they are. The reality is that they are simply packers of culture and knowledge who aren’t even wrapping up their products competently. For now, though, these children have been given a nuclear bomb to play with, and they just used it to kill a cockroach. Beware the radiation.</p>
<p><em>Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher at the Alternative Law Forum; Achal Prabhala is a writer and researcher in Bangalore</em></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/a-ludicrous-ban#.T8wh4gZuXto.twitter">Click</a> to read the original published in the Open Magazine on June 2, 2012</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherAchal Prabhala and Lawrence LiangCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-04T04:22:11ZBlog EntryThe International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles
https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright
<b>This event organised by Max Planck Institute was held in Munich, Germany on May 14 and 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event.</b>
<h2>List of Participants</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Mr. Olatunji Babatunde Adetula</td>
<td>Director, Nigerian Copyright Commission</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa</td>
<td>African University for Science and Technology & University of California School of Law, Irvine</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Michael W. Carroll</td>
<td>Professor of Law, <br />Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property,<br />American University, Washington College of Law</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Alberto Cerda Silva</td>
<td>S.J.D. Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Research Associate,Knowledge Ecology International<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Vera Franz</td>
<td>Senior Program Manager<br />Open Society Information Program<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Christophe Geiger</td>
<td>Associate Professor<br />Director General<br />Director of the Research Department<br />CEIPI, Université de Strasbourg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Daniel Gervais</td>
<td>FedEx Research Professor of Law<br />Co-Director, Vanderbilt Intellectual Property Program<br />Vanderbilt University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Cristiana Gonzalez</td>
<td>Senior Researcher<br />Universidade de São Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Teresa Hackett</td>
<td>Programme Manager EIFL</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty</td>
<td>Managing Director<br />Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich<br />Honorary Professor at the University of Munich<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Zorina Khan</td>
<td>Professor<br />Department of Economics<br />Bowdoin College</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Kaya Köklü</td>
<td>Senior Research Fellow<br />Intellectual Property and Competition Law<br />Max Planck Institute</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Eniko Kovacs</td>
<td>Program Manager<br />Academic Fellowship Program, HESP<br />Open Society Foundations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif</td>
<td>Intellectual Property and Technology Senior<br />Programme Manager<br />International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Mayara Nascimento Santos Leal</td>
<td>Division of Intellectual Property<br />Economic Department<br />Ministry of External Relations, Brazil</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Lydia Loren</td>
<td>Professor of Law<br />Kay Kitagawa & Andy Johnson-Laird IP Faculty Scholar<br />Lewis & Clark Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Viviana Munoz Tellez</td>
<td>Programme Officer, IAKP<br />The South Centre</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Ruth Okediji</td>
<td>William L. Prosser Professor of Law<br />University of Minnesota Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Pranesh Prakash</td>
<td>Programme Manager<br />The Center for Internet and Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. G.R. Raghavender</td>
<td>Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP & CR)<br />Copyright Office<br />Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prof. Jerome H. Reichman</td>
<td>Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law<br />Duke University Law School</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Manon Ress</td>
<td>Director of Information Society Projects <br />Knowledge Ecology International</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Carolina Rossini</td>
<td>Senior Fellow at GPOPAI, University of Sao Paulo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Susan Strba</td>
<td>Expert and Author, Copyright L&Es for Education in Africa</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Luis Villaroel Villalon</td>
<td>Director de Investigación Corporación Innovarte</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dr. Moktar Warida</td>
<td>First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the United Nations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ms. Raquel Xalabarder Plantada</td>
<td>Director, Learning Resources<br />Vice President’s Office, Faculty and Academic Organization<br />Open University of Catalonia</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Workshop Associates</h2>
<table class="plain">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Affiliation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Lindsey Niznik</td>
<td>Senior, University of Minnesota</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peju Solarin</td>
<td>Doctoral Candidate<br />International Max Planck Research School on Retaliation, Mediation, and Punishment, Max Planck Institute </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ceipi.edu/uploads/media/Munich_Workshop_List_of_Participants_5_9_12-1.pdf">See the original here</a>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright'>https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-01T04:29:36ZNews ItemTowards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’
https://cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation
<b>This event was organised by Digital Empowerment Foundation, National Internet Exchange of India and Association for Progressive Communications at Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated as a speaker in the session on Access to Internet: Right to Information.</b>
<div style="text-align: left;"> </div>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. (Registration)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.<br />
<h3>Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Introduction: Osama Manzar, Founder & Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation<br />Chair: Aruna Roy, Head, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) & Member, National Advisory Council (NAC), Govt. of India<br />Co-Chair: Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DIT, Govt. of India<br /><strong>Plenary Speakers:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC</li><li>Venkatesh Nayak, Co-convener, Secretary, National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information</li><li>Jitendra Kohli, Executive Member, Transparency International India Summary of the Session by the Chair</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00 to 11.15 a.m. (Tea break)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.<br />
<h3>Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chairperson: Basheerhamad Shadrach, Development Consultant<br /><strong>Plenary Speakers:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet & Society</li><li>NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law</li><li>Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India</li><li>Varsha Iyenger, Member, Centre for Law and Policy Research</li><li>Amitabh Singhal, Former CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)</li><li>Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Founding Member, Association for Democratic Reforms</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.<br />Working Session II - Internet Right as Human Right: Need for a Holistic Framework towards Universal Access in India<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chairperson: Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), Govt. of India<br />Co-chair & Moderator: R. Sukumar , Managing Editor, Live Mint Newspaper<br />Panel Members:<br />
<ul><li>Subho Ray, President, Internet & Mobile Association of India (IMAI)</li><li>Deepak Maheshwari, Vice President - Public Policy, South Asia, MasterCard</li><li>Ravina Agarwal, Program Officer, Ford Foundation</li><li>Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC</li><li>Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights</li><li>Anoop Saha, Co-Founder, CGNet Swara</li><li>Shivam Vij, Writer, Kafila.org</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a class="external-link" href="http://internetrights.in/files/2012/04/National-Consultation-Summit-on-Internet-Rights-_-Programme-Flow-Final.pdf">Click</a> to see the original
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation'>https://cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-05-31T07:14:42ZNews ItemWill the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?
https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist
<b>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/28/will-the-copyright-law-help-the-starving-artist/">This article by Margherita Stancati was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.</p>
<p>"I remember when Ustad Bismillah Khan" – a legendary Indian classical musician – "came to me and said that he did not have money to pay his rent," Indian Human Resources Minister Kapil Sibal <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bollywood-cheers-as-lok-sabha-passes-copyright-bill_1692466">recently told Parliament</a>.</p>
<p>At the time, Mr. Sibal said he solved the problem by writing him a check.</p>
<p>The government hopes that changes introduced to India’s 1957 Copyright Act will allow composers and other artists to do away with such acts of charity. Parliament passed the bill amending the copyright act last week.</p>
<p>By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.</p>
<p>Earlier, "artists would typically give all the rights to the producer. It was called a work for hire," says Anish Dayal, a Supreme Court lawyer who specializes in media and entertainment legislation.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">amendments</a> to the act means that "even if they want to give rights to producers, they can’t," adds Mr. Dayal.</p>
<p>The way the law phrases this is a little confusing. An amendment to section 18 of the act says that authors of literary or musical works featured in movies shall "receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis" with others who have copyright over the work (such as producers.) It’s not clear whether "equal basis" means 50% or whether it depends on the number of people with whom the royalties are shared.</p>
<p>The amended law also makes it compulsory for radio and broadcasters to pay royalties every time they air a recording.</p>
<p>The biggest impact of these changes will be on India’s film industry, especially on the lyricists and composers of Bollywood music, who have long lobbied for rights over their work.</p>
<p>Before the amendments were given a green light, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2_dw7OmS2U&feature=youtu.be">Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar described the condition artists worked in as "bonded labor</a>." Recently addressing lawmakers in the upper house of Parliament, where he holds an honorary seat, Mr. Akhtar shared a long list of cases of famed Indian musicians and composers who lived and died in penury. He named Shailendra, a popular 1950s Hindi lyricist, and Omkar Prasad Nayyar, a composer of movie scores.</p>
<p>For Paromita Vohra, a Mumbai-based documentary filmmaker, said changes to the law mark a first step towards making art production “more equal” by giving artists more rights over their work. "It’s about time," says Ms. Vohra, who last year made a <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/02/10/the-partners-in-copyright-crime/">film on copyright in the world of art</a>.</p>
<p>"Those who have the money are more powerful than those who make the arts. The act recognizes this, it addresses a power balance," she adds, describing this as a "philosophical change" in the law.</p>
<p>But she says this alone is not enough. "Lawyers are good at circumventing the law," she claims. Still, artists willing to fight for their rights "now have the law to fall back on," she adds.</p>
<p>Stronger labor unions, Ms. Vohra says, would make it easier for artists to make the most of the new legislation. "When that happens, I think the law will be very helpful."</p>
<p>Not all were pleased with the changes on royalties. <a class="external-link" href="http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250070212">Adarsh Gupta of Saregama</a>, a music production company, said the law is "extremely unfair to the film and music industry" and that it paves the way to litigation.</p>
<p>Other changes introduced in the act include tighter regulations on cover versions, including a clause that raises the time period after which covers are legally allowed from two to five years.</p>
<p>Critics say these restrictions are excessive and at odds with art produced in the digital era.</p>
<p>"This ignores present-day realities," Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet & Society wrote in his <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012" class="external-link">analysis of the amended copyright bill</a>. He used the example of the hit tune Kolaveri Di, which was covered countless times. "The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars," he adds.</p>
<p>The act also removes copyright requirements for Braille or for other works of art adapted for people with disabilities.</p>
<p>What the amended law does not include is a clause that many in the <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/01/13/is-the-copyright-bill-bad-for-indian-readers/">Indian publishing industry feared may have made them redundant</a>. The proposed amendment would have allowed non-Indian publishing houses distribute their books in India, removing the territorial exclusivity of local publishers. This clause did not make it in the final version of the law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist'>https://cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-29T03:46:23ZNews ItemDid Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?
https://cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers
<b>The publishing industry seems to have got the better of the Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal. Pranesh Prakash's article on parallel importation of books is referred in this article published in FirstPost on May 25, 2012.</b>
<p>The move to open up the market for distribution of international books to competition has been successfully thwarted with the removal of an amendment allowing parallel imports from the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 that was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 May.</p>
<p>This despite the Parliamentary Standing Committee supporting the amendment on the grounds that it will increase student access to books.</p>
<p>But it could well only be a temporary victory for the publishing giants with Sibal promising to restore the amendment if the National Council of Applied Economic Research – to which the matter has been referred – should in its report (expected in August) recommend parallel imports.</p>
<p>The draft bill (which included the amendment) had created a furore in publishing circles last year. Parallel imports, claimed leading publishing houses, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/Read%20Thomas%20Abraham%E2%80%99s%20Death%20of%20Books%20published%20last%20year%20in%20the%20Hindustan%20Times%20http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Columns/The-death-of-books/Article1-652735.aspx">would destroy the industry</a>. Read Thomas Abraham’s Death of Books published last year in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Columns/The-death-of-books/Article1-652735.aspx">The Hindustan Times</a>.</p>
<p>While that remains open for debate, there is no denying the larger common good of faster and cheaper availability of books to millions of students that parallel imports will make possible. Ordering books may no longer be a click away if Flipkart had to take permission from the Indian copyright owner every time you ordered an international title.</p>
<p>In an article titled <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/parallel-importation-of-books" class="external-link">Why Parallel Importation of Books</a> should be Allowed published by The Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash makes a compelling case for ending the distribution monopoly.</p>
<p>Underlying the huge benefit to students, the author says “Currently a large percentage of educational books in India are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition, the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an authorisation to import books—the licence raj that currently exists would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit.</p>
<p>“This is especially important for students and for libraries because even when low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.”</p>
<p>The article also argues how the business model of hugely popular site such as Flipkart depends on parallel imports to deliver books to its customers at great bargains.<br /><br />Allowing parallel imports, argues the author, will dismantle distribution monopoly rights and help book publishers, libraries, the print-disabled and consumers in general. He also makes the important distinction between the black market and parallel imports, which is legal.<br /><br />Offering a point-by-point rebuttal of the publishing industry’s claims of the destructive impact of parallel imports, the author observes “It seems to us that the publishing industry – especially foreign publishers with distributorship in India – don’t want to open themselves up to competition in the distribution market and are opposing this most commendable move.”<br /><br />He concludes that allowing parallel imports will, in fact, result in an expansion of the reading market.<br /><br />“It is mainly foreign publishers’ monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.”</p>
<p>Read the original from <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers-321144.html">FirstPost.India</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers'>https://cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-05-28T06:08:57ZNews ItemGoogle Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/">Google Policy Fellowship</a> offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.</p>
<p>To apply, please send to<a class="external-link" href="mailto:google.fellowship@cis-india.org"> google.fellowship@cis-india.org</a> the following materials:</p>
<ol><li><strong>Statement of Purpose</strong>: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).</li><li><strong>Resume</strong></li><li><strong>Three references</strong></li></ol>
<h2>Fellowship Focus Areas</h2>
<ul><li><strong>Access to Knowledge</strong>: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.</li><li><strong>Openness in India</strong>: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public. </li><li><strong>Freedom of Expression</strong>: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.</li><li><strong>Privacy</strong>: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.</li><li><strong>Telecom</strong>: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.<br /></li></ul>
<h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2>
<ul><li><strong>What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?</strong><br />Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?</strong><br />For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.</li><li><strong>I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li><li><strong>I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li></ul>
<h2>Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff</h2>
<h3>How do payments work?*</h3>
<p>Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.</p>
<ul><li>Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.</li></ul>
<p>Please note: <em>Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend</em>.</p>
<p><strong>*</strong>While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.</p>
<h3>What documentation is required from students?</h3>
<p>Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).</p>
<h3>I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?</h3>
<p>Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.</p>
<h2>Host Organizations<br /></h2>
<h3>What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?</h3>
<p>Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.</p>
<h2>Important Dates<br /></h2>
<h3><strong>What is the program timeline?</strong></h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>June 27, 2012</td>
<td>Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>July 18, 2012</td>
<td>Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>August 2012</td>
<td>Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>September 2012</td>
<td>Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>October 2012</td>
<td>Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceResearchTelecomIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipOpenness2012-05-24T15:38:28ZBlog EntryCopyright Madness
https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness
<b>Prompted by courts and piracy-fearing businesses, Indian ISPs have taken down popular, legitimate websites. This Op-ed by Lawrence Liang and Achal Prabhala was published in the Indian Express on May 22, 2012.</b>
<p>The funniest thing about the “ban” on torrent sites and video-sharing
sites by a Madras high court order of March 29 is that it doesn’t work.
Naturally: we’re talking about the Internet, whose users and makers
have fended off twisted judgments, corporate takeovers, undue state
control and outrageous censorship since its inception. So if you
currently live in India and want to read the new Paulo Coelho bestseller
on his preferred distribution service — otherwise known as The Pirate
Bay — or want to watch your own wedding video on Vimeo, the platform of
choice for independent filmmakers, then all you have to do is go through
one of the many hundreds of virtual private networks that provide a
workaround, most of which are free and take about two seconds to
execute.<br />
<br />
Sadly, this is where the fun ends. As you read this, Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) across the country will have put in place an
overreaching, wildly imaginative and totally ludicrous ban on just about
everything the Internet facilitates human beings to excel at —
learning, sharing and growing. The real danger is not the effect of the
court order or its interpretation, but the fact that it is a part of a
disturbing trend in which copyright owners presume that it is piracy
that results in the failure of their films. This, coming from an
industry that regularly churns out facsimiles of Hollywood hits and
renders them original works worthy of copyright protection. Let’s get
this clear: films fail when they are bad. Films that hit the box office
jackpot do so in spite of piracy simply because they are good.<br />
<br />
A quick recap of the facts. Earlier this year, a Chennai firm called
Copyright Labs, acting on behalf of its client R.K. Productions, applied
to the Madras High Court to protect the Tamil film 3 — starring Dhanush
and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajnikanth’s daughter, Aishwarya —
from copyright infringement on the Internet. The petition was filed even
before the film’s release; the protection sought was pre-emptive. The
Madras high court passed a “John Doe” order, which is, in essence, a
sweeping set of protections granted against unknown potential offenders
in the future, without giving any other interested party the chance to
be heard. Any order that does not give the other side a chance to be
heard — without even knowing who the other side is — has to be exercised
judiciously; if every new film produced in India released with an ex
parte order every Friday, principles of natural justice would be
diluted, to the larger detriment of the legal system itself.<br />
<br />
This is not the first John Doe order pertaining to copyright that has
been issued in India, but it is certainly the most consequential.
Previous orders (in relation to copyright) are relatively recent, and
have been passed over the last few years in relation to a single motion
picture and to music at large — but their effects have been relatively
contained. The problem with John Doe orders is that by their overly
broad and sweeping nature, they extend to a range of non-infringing
activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their
net. And speaking of legal acts, the ultimate irony here is that the
first we heard of this film was through the viral hit song Kolaveri Di —
distributed at will with the blessings of the filmmakers — which
created massive pre-release publicity for 3. Consider then that this
order is not quite the slaying of the golden goose, but a gag order on
the animal kingdom since there could be a wild animal lurking amidst the
geese.<br />
<br />
Reading through the list of websites that ISPs have banned — as Nikhil
Pahwa carefully details on Medianama — is an eye-popping exercise. The
Pirate Bay, everyone’s favourite hallucination, is on it. So are
Isohunt, and a few others. Two video-sharing sites are named, Vimeo and
DailyMotion. (Never mind that all these websites house a sizeable
percentage of perfectly legitimate content that is user-generated and
user-uploaded and distributed with the full permission of the copyright
owner.) Inexplicably, the ISPs — or some mysterious intermediaries
between the Madras high court and them — in their wisdom, march forth
and ban a website that allows the sharing of bookmarks (Xmarks), and
another that primarily exists for Twitter users who want to exceed their
140 character limit (Pastebin), regardless of their complete
inapplicability in this situation.<br />
<br />
India’s copyright act allows owners of content the right to prevent
infringement through the use of injunctions, but these injunctions have
to be narrowly construed and applied only to specific instances of
infringement. Which is to say, take down the infringing video, not the
whole website, and don’t intimidate the host. When injunctions threaten
freedom of speech and expression, then free speech should necessarily
trump copyright claims — and the courts cannot be used as convenient
shopping forums for maladies that don’t exist. The real issue here is
that copyright industries have to come up with better business models
that take cognisance of technologies that allow people to exchange
information. The course we are currently on will only result in
strangling technology and stifling innovation and creativity.</p>
<p>Read the original published by the Indian Express <a class="external-link" href="http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22copyright-madness%22/952088/">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence Liang and Achal PrabhalaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-30T03:46:24ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012
<b>There are some welcome provisions in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012, and some worrisome provisions. Pranesh Prakash examines five positive changes, four negative ones, and notes the several missed opportunities. The larger concern, though, is that many important issues have not been addressed by these amendments, and how copyright policy is made without evidence and often out of touch with contemporary realities of the digital era.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012</a> has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and will become law as soon as the President gives her assent and it is published in the Gazette of India. While we celebrate the passage of some progressive amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 — including an excellent exception for persons with disabilities — we must keep in mind that there are some regressive amendments as well. In this blog post, I will try to highlight those provisions of the amendment that have not received much public attention (unlike the issue of lyricists’ and composers’ ‘right to royalty’).</p>
<h2>Welcome Changes</h2>
<h3>Provisions for Persons with Disabilities</h3>
<p>India now has amongst the most progressive exception for persons with disabilities, alongside countries like Chile. Under the amendments, sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B carve out exceptions and limitations for persons with disabilities. Earlier s.52(1)(zb) dealt only with formats that were “special designed only for the use of persons suffering from visual, aural, or other disabilities”. Thanks to a campaign mounted by disability rights groups and public interest groups such as CIS, it now covers “any accessible format”. Section 52(1)(zb) allows any person to facilitate access by persons with disabilities to copyrighted works without any payment of compensation to the copyright holder, and any organization working the benefit of persons with disabilities to do so as long as it is done on a non-profit basis and with reasonable steps being taken to prevent entry of reproductions of the copyrighted work into the mainstream. Even for-profit businesses are allowed to do so if they obtain a compulsory licence on a work-by-work basis, and pay the royalties fixed by the Copyright Board. The onerousness of this provision puts its utility into question, and this won’t disappear unless the expression “work” in s.31B is read to include a class of works.</p>
<p>Given that the Delhi High Court has — wrongly and <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_incuriam">per incuriam</a>, since it did not refer to s.14(a)(ii) as it was amended in 1994 — held parallel importation to be barred by the Copyright Act, it was important for Parliament to clarify that the Copyright Act in fact follows international exhaustion. Without this, even if any person can facilitate access for persons with disabilities to copyrighted works, those works are restricted to those that are circulated in India. Given that not many books are converted into accessible formats in India (not to mention the costs of doing so), and given the much larger budgets for book conversion in the developed world, this is truly restrictive.</p>
<h3>Extension of Fair Dealing to All Works</h3>
<p>The law earlier dealt with fair dealing rights with regard to “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works”. Now it covers all works (except software), in effect covering sound recordings and video as well. This will help make personal copies of songs and films, to make copies for research, to use film clips in classrooms, etc.</p>
<h3>Creative Commons, Open Licensing Get a Boost</h3>
<p>The little-known s.21 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the right of authors to relinquish copyright, has been amended. While earlier one could only relinquish parts of one’s copyright by submitting a form to the Registrar of Copyrights, now a simple public notice suffices. Additionally, s.30 of the Act, which required licences to be in writing and signed, now only requires it to be in writing. This puts Creative Commons, the GNU Public Licence, and other open licensing models, on a much surer footing in India.</p>
<h3>Physical Libraries Should Celebrate, Perhaps Virtual Libraries Too</h3>
<p>Everywhere that the word “hire” occurs (except s.51, curiously), the word “commercial rental” has been substituted. This has been done, seemingly, to bring India in conformance with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). The welcome side-effect of this is that the legality of lending by non-profit public libraries has been clarified. The amendment states:</p>
<p class="discreet">"2(1)(fa) “commercial rental” does not include the rental, lease or lending of a lawfully acquired copy of a computer programme, sound recording, visual recording or cinematograph film for non-profit purposes by a non-profit library or non-profit educational institution."</p>
<p>Even after this, the overwhelming majority of the ‘video lending libraries’ that you see in Indian cities and towns continue to remain illegal.</p>
<p>Another welcome provision is the amended s.52(1)(n), which now allows “non-commercial public libraries” to store an electronic copy of a work if it already has a physical copy of the work. However, given that this provision says that the storage shall be “for preservation”, it seems limited. However, libraries might be able to use this — in conjunction with the fact that under s.14 of the Copyright Act lending rights of authors is limited to “commercial rental” and s.51(b) only covers lending of “infringing copies” — to argue that they can legally scan and lend electronic copies of works in the same manner that they lend physical copies. Whether this argument would succeed is unclear. Thus, India has not boldly gone where the European Commission is treading with talks of a European Digital Library Project, or where scholars in the US are headed with the Digital Public Library of America. But we might have gone there quietly. Thus, this amendment might help foster an Indian <a class="external-link" href="http://internetarchive.org/">Internet Archive</a>, or help spread the idea of the <a class="external-link" href="http://openlibrary.org/">Open Library</a> in India.</p>
<p>On a final note, different phrases are used to refer to libraries in the amendment. In s.2(1)(fa), it talks about "non-profit library"; in s.52(1)(n) and (o), it refers to "non-commercial public library"; and in s.52(1)(zb), it talks of "library or archives", but s.52(1)(zb) also requires that the works be made available on a "non-profit basis". The differentiation, if any, that is sought to be drawn between these is unclear.</p>
<h3>Limited Protection to Some Internet Intermediaries</h3>
<p>There are two new provisions, s.52(1)(b) and 52(1)(c), which provide some degree of protection to 'transient or incidental' storage of a work or performance. Section 52(1)(b) allows for "the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public", hence applying primarily to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), VPN providers, etc. Section 52(1)(c) allows for "transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy". This seems to make it applicable primarily to search engines, with other kinds of online services being covered or not covered depending on one’s interpretation of the word 'incidental'.</p>
<h3>Compulsory Licensing Now Applies to Foreign Works Also</h3>
<p>Sections 31 ("compulsory licence in works withheld from public") and 31A ("compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works") used to apply to Indian works. Now they apply to all works, whether Indian or not (and now s.31A is about "compulsory licence in unpublished or published works", mainly orphan works). This is a welcome amendment, making foreign works capable of being licensed compulsorily in case it is published elsewhere but withheld in India. Given how onerous our compulsory licensing sections are, especially sections 32 and 32A (which deal with translations, and with literary, scientific or artistic works), it is not a surprise that they have not been used even once. However, given the modifications to s.31 and s.31A, we might just see those starting to be used by publishers, and not just radio broadcasters.</p>
<h2>Worrisome Changes</h2>
<h3>Term of Copyright for Photographs Nearly Doubled</h3>
<p>The term of copyright for photographs has now gone from sixty years from publication to sixty years from the death of the photographer. This would mean that copyright in a photograph clicked today (2012) by a 20 year old who dies at the 80 will only expire on January 1, 2133. This applies not only to artistic photographs, to all photographs because copyright is an opt-out system, not an opt-in system. Quite obviously, most photoshopping is illegal under copyright law.</p>
<p>This has two problems. First, there was no case made out for why this term needed to be increased. No socio-economic report was commissioned on the effects of such a term increase. This clause was not even examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. While the WCT requires a ‘life + 50′ years term for photographs, we are not signatories to the WCT, and hence have no obligation to enforce this. We are signatories to the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, which require a copyright term of 25 years for photographs. Instead, we have gone even above the WCT requirement and provide a life + 60 years term.</p>
<p>The second problem is that it is easier to say when a photograph was published than to say who the photographer was and when that photographer died. Even when you are the subject of a photograph, the copyright in the photograph belongs to the photographer. Unless a photograph was made under commission or the photographer assigned copyright to you, you do not own the copyright in the photographs. (Thanks to <a href="http://deviantlight.blogspot.com">Bipin Aspatwar</a>, for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version, with "employment" and "commission" being treated differently.) This will most definitely harm projects like Wikipedia, and other projects that aim at archiving and making historical photographs available publicly, since it is difficult to say whether the copyright in a photograph still persists.</p>
<h3>Cover Versions Made More Difficult: Kolaveri Di Singers Remain Criminals</h3>
<p>The present amendments have brought about the following changes, which make it more difficult to produce cover versions:</p>
<ol>
<li> Time period after which a cover version can be made has increased from 2 years to 5 years.</li>
<li>Requirement of same medium as the original. So if the original is on a cassette, the cover cannot be released on a CD.</li>
<li>Payment has to be made in advance, and for a minimum of 50000 copies. This can be lowered by Copyright Board having regard to unpopular dialects.</li>
<li>While earlier it was prohibited to mislead the public (i.e., pretend the cover was the original, or endorsed by the original artists), now cover versions are not allowed to "contain the name or depict in any way any performer of an earlier sound recording of the same work or any cinematograph film in which such sound recording was incorporated".</li>
<li>All cover versions must state that they are cover versions.</li>
<li>No alterations are allowed from the original song, and alteration is qualified as ‘alteration in the literary or musical work’. So no imaginative covers in which the lyrics are changed or in which the music is reworked are allowed without the copyright owners’ permission. Only note-for-note and word-for-word covers are allowed.</li>
<li>Alterations were allowed if they were "reasonably necessary for the adaptation of the work" now they are only allowed if it is "technically necessary for the purpose of making of the sound recording".</li>
</ol>
<p>This ignores present-day realities. Kolaveri Di was covered numerous times without permission, and each one of those illegal acts helped spread its popularity. The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars. Film producers and music companies want both the audience reach that comes from less stringent copyright laws (and things like cover versions), as well as the ability to prosecute that same behaviour at will. It is indeed ironic that T-Series, the company that broke HMV’s stranglehold over the Indian recording market thanks to cover versions, is itself one of the main movers behind ever-more stringent copyright laws.</p>
<h3>Digital Locks Now Provided Legal Protection Without Accountability</h3>
<p>As I have covered the issue of Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Rights Management Information (RMI), which are ‘digital locks’ also known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment" class="external-link">in great detail earlier</a>, I won’t repeat the arguments at length. Very briefly:</p>
<ol>
<li>It is unclear that anyone has been demanding the grant of legal protection to DRMs in India, and We have no obligation under any international treaties to do so. It is not clear how DRM will help authors and artists, but it is clear how it will harm users.</li>
<li>While the TPM and RMI provisions are much more balanced than the equivalent provisions in laws like the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMC), that isn’t saying much. Importantly, while users are given certain rights to break the digital locks, they are helpless if they aren’t also provided the technological means of doing so. Simply put: music and movie companies have rights to place digital locks, and under some limited circumstances users have the right to break them. But if the locks are difficult to break, the users have no choice but to live with the lock, despite having a legal right.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Removal of Parallel Importation</h3>
<p>In past blog posts I have covered <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books" class="external-link">why allowing parallel imports makes sense in India</a>. And as explained above, the Delhi High Court acted per incuriam when holding that the Copyright Act does not allow parallel importation. The Copyright Act only prohibits import of infringing copies of a work, and a copy of a book that has been legally sold in a foreign country is not an “infringing copy”. The government was set to introduce a provision making it clear that parallel importation was allowed. The Parliamentary Standing Committee heard objections to this proposal from a foreign publishers’ association, but decided to recommend the retention of the clause. Still, due to pressure from a few publishing companies whose business relies on monopolies over importation of works into India, the government has decided to delete the provision. However, thankfully, the HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, has assured both houses of Parliament that he will move a further amendment if an<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ncaer.org/"> NCAER</a> report he has commissioned (which will be out by August or September) recommends the introduction of parallel imports.</p>
<h3>Expansion of Moral Rights Without Safeguards</h3>
<p>Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without adequate safeguards. The changes might allow the legal heir of an author, artist, etc., to object to ‘distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act’ of her ancestors work even when the ancestor might not have. By this amendment, this right continues in perpetuity, even after the original creator dies and even after the work enters into the public domain. It seems Indian policymakers had not heard of <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_James_Joyce">Stephen Joyce</a>, the grandson of James Joyce, who has “brought numerous lawsuits or threats of legal action against scholars, biographers and artists attempting to quote from Joyce’s literary work or personal correspondence”. Quoting from his Wikipedia page:</p>
<p class="callout">In 2004, Stephen threatened legal action against the Irish government when the Rejoyce Dublin 2004 festival proposed public reading of excerpts of Ulysses on Bloomsday. In 1988 Stephen Joyce burnt a collection of letters written by Lucia Joyce, his aunt. In 1989 he forced Brenda Maddox to delete a postscript concerning Lucia from her biography Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom. After 1995 Stephen announced no permissions would be granted to quote from his grandfather’s work. Libraries holding letters by Joyce were unable to show them without permission. Versions of his work online were disallowed. Stephen claimed to be protecting his grandfather’s and families reputation, but would sometimes grant permission to use material in exchange for fees that were often "extortionate".</p>
<p>Because in countries like the UK and Canada the works of James Joyce are now in the public domain, Stephen Joyce can no longer restrict apply such conditions. However now, in India, despite James Joyce’s works being in the public domain, Stephen Joyce’s indefensible demands may well carry legal weight.</p>
<h3>Backdoor Censorship</h3>
<p>As noted above, the provision that safeguard Internet intermediaries (like search engines) is very limited. However, that provision has an extensive removal provision:</p>
<p class="callout">Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;</p>
<p>There are two things to be noted here. First, that without proof (or negative consequences for false complaints) the service provider is mandated to prevent access to the copy for 21 day. Second, after the elapsing of 21 days, the service provider may 'put back' the content, but is not mandated to do so. This would allow people to file multiple frivolous complaints against any kind of material, even falsely (since there is no penalty for false compalaints), and keep some material permanently censored.</p>
<h2>Missed Opportunities</h2>
<h3>Fair Dealing Guidelines, Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities</h3>
<p>The following important changes should have been made by the government, but haven’t. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone beyond the proposed amendments, it has not touched upon any of the following, which we believe are very important changes that are required to be made.</p>
<ul>
<li> Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights Management Information also.</li>
<li>Fair dealing guidelines: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions, but would act as a more general framework for those cases which are not covered by the specific exceptions.</li>
<li>Government works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection could simply allow for “the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work” as being non-infringing uses.</li>
<li>Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.</li>
<li>Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.</li>
<li>Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</li>
<li>Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled. Importantly, after the terrible judgment passed by Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court in the Super Cassettes v. Myspace case, any website hosting user-generated content is vulnerable to payment of hefty damages even if it removes content speedily on the basis of complaints.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Amendments Not Examined</h2>
<p>For the sake of brevity, I have not examined the major changes that have been made with regard to copyright societies, lyricists and composers, and statutory licensing for broadcasters, all of which have received considerable attention by copyright experts elsewhere, nor have I examined many minor amendments.</p>
<h2>A Note on the Parliamentary Process</h2>
<p>Much of the discussions around the Copyright Act have been around the rights of composers and lyricists vis-à-vis producers. As this has been covered elsewhere, I won’t comment much on it, other than to say that it is quite unfortunate that the trees are lost for the forest. It is indeed a good thing that lyricists and composers are being provided additional protection against producers who are usually in a more advantageous bargaining position. This fact came out well in both houses of Parliament during the debate on the Copyright Bill.<br /><br />However, the mechanism of providing this protection — by preventing assignment of “the right to receive royalties”, though the “right to receive royalties” is never mentioned as a separate right anywhere else in the Copyright Act — was not critically examined by any of the MPs who spoke. What about the unintended consequences of such an amendment? Might this not lead to new contracts where instead of lump-sums, lyricists and music composers might instead be asked to bear the risk of not earning anything at all unless the film is profitable? What about a situation where a producer asks a lyricist to first assign all rights (including royalty rights) to her heirs and then enters into a contract with those heirs? The law, unfortunately at times, revolves around words used by the legislature and not just the intent of the legislature. While one cannot predict which way the amendment will go, one would have expected better discussions around this in Parliament.</p>
<p>Much of the discussion (in both <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/Fullday.pdf">the Rajya Sabha</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.132/newdebate/15/10/22052012/Fullday.pdf">the Lok Sabha</a>) was rhetoric about the wonders of famous Indian songwriters and music composers and the abject penury in which some not-so-famous ones live, and there was very little discussion about the actual merits of the content of the Bill in terms of how this problem will be overcome. A few MPs did deal with issues of substance. Some asked the HRD Minister tough questions about the Statement of Objects and Reasons noting that amendments have been brought about to comply with the WCT and WPPT which were “adopted … by consensus”, even though this is false as India is not a signatory to the WCT and WPPT. MP P. Rajeeve further raised the issue of parallel imports and that of there being no public demand for including TPM in the Act, but that being a reaction to the US’s flawed Special 301 reports. Many, however, spoke about issues such as the non-award of the Bharat Ratna to Bhupen Hazarika, about the need to tackle plagiarism, and how the real wealth of a country is not material wealth but intellectual wealth.</p>
<p>This preponderance of rhetoric over content is not new when it comes to copyright policy in India. In 1991, when an amendment was presented to increase term of copyright in all works by ten years (from expiring 50 years from the author’s death to 60 years post-mortem), the vast majority of the Parliamentarians who stood up to speak on the issue waxed eloquent about the greatness of Rabindranath Tagore (whose works were about to lapse into the public domain), and how we must protect his works. Little did they reflect that extending copyright — for all works, whether by Tagore or not — will not help ‘protect’ the great Bengali artist, but would only make his (and all) works costlier for 10 additional years. Good-quality and cheaper editions of Tagore’s works are more easily available post-2001 (when his copyright finally lapsed) than before, since companies like Rupa could produce cheap editions without seeking a licence from Visva Bharati. And last I checked Tagore’s works have not been sullied by them having passed into the public domain in 2001.</p>
<p>Further, one could find outright mistakes in the assertions of Parliamentarians. In both Houses, DMK MPs raised objections with regard to parallel importation being allowed in the Bill — only in the version of the Bill they were debating, parallel importation was not being allowed. One MP stated that “statutory licensing provisions like these are not found anywhere else in the world”. This is incorrect, given that there are extensive statutory licensing provision in countries like the United States, covering a variety of situations, from transmission of sound recordings over Internet radio to secondary transmission of the over-the-air programming.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, though that MP did not raise this issue, there is a larger problem that underlies copyright policymaking in India, and that is the fact that there is no impartial evidence gathered and no proper studies that are done before making of policies. We have no equivalent of the Hargreaves Report or the Gowers Report, or the studies by the Productivity Council in Australia or the New Zealand government study of parallel importation.</p>
<p>There was no economic analysis conducted of the effect of the increase in copyright term for photographs. We have evidence from elsewhere that copyright terms <a class="external-link" href="http://williampatry.blogspot.in/2007/07/statute-of-anne-too-generous-by-half.html">are already</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2024588">too long</a>, and all increases in term are what economists refer to as <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss">deadweight losses</a>. There is no justification whatsoever for increasing term of copyright for photographs, since India is not even a signatory to the WCT (which requires this term increase). In fact, we have lost precious negotiation space internationally since in bilateral trade agreements we have been asked to bring our laws in compliance with the WCT, and we have asked for other conditions in return. By unilaterally bringing ourselves in compliance with WCT, we have lost important bargaining power.</p>
<h2>Users and Smaller Creators Left Out of Discussions</h2>
<p>Thankfully, the Parliamentary Standing Committee went into these minutiae in greater detail. Though, as I have noted elsewhere, the Parliamentary Standing Committee did not invite any non-industry groups for deposition before it, other than the disability rights groups which had campaigned really hard. So while changes that would affect libraries were included, not a single librarian was called by the Standing Committee. Despite comments having been submitted <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/copyright-bill-submission" class="external-link">to the Standing Committee on behalf of 22 civil society organizations</a>, none of those organizations were asked to depose. Importantly, non-industry users of copyrighted materials — consumers, historians, teachers, students, documentary film-makers, RTI activists, independent publishers, and people like you and I — are not seen as legitimate interested parties in the copyright debate. This is amply clear from the the fact that only one MP each in the two houses of Parliament raised the issue of users’ rights at all.</p>
<h2>Concluding Thoughts</h2>
<p>What stands out most from this process of amendment of the copyright law, which has been going on since 2006, is how out-of-touch the law is with current cultural practices. Most instances of photoshopping are illegal. Goodbye Lolcats. Cover versions (for which payments have to be made) have to wait for five years. Goodbye Kolaveri Di. Do you own the jokes you e-mail to others, and have you taken licences for quoting older e-mails in your replies? Goodbye e-mail. The strict laws of copyright, with a limited set of exceptions, just do not fit the digital era where everything digital transaction results in a bytes being copied. We need to take a much more thoughtful approach to rationalizing copyright: introduction of general fair dealing guidelines, reduction of copyright term, decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, and other such measures. If we don’t take such measures soon, we will all have to be prepared to be treated as criminals for all our lives. Breaking copyright law shouldn’t be as easy as breathing, yet thanks to outdated laws, it is.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/26243">This was reposted in infojustice.org on May 25, 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeFair DealingsPiracyIntellectual Property RightsEconomicsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedTechnological Protection Measures2013-11-12T14:13:04ZBlog Entry2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest: Call for Participation and Save the Date
https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation
<b>The Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest will take place in FGV Law School, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil from December 15 to 17, 2012. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion.” We invite applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.</b>
<h2>Application and Cost <br /></h2>
<p>The application form is available <a class="external-link" href="http://jotformpro.com/form/21173970862962">online</a><a class="external-link" href="http://jotformpro.com/form/21173970862962"></a>. Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.</p>
<h2>Deadlines</h2>
<ol><li>Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.</li><li>Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.</li><li>Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.</li></ol>
<h2>Background and Explanation of the Theme</h2>
<p>The first Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was convened in 2011 to define a positive agenda for policy reform, build a global network of scholars and advocates to promote the agenda and provide opportunities for the sharing of research and strategies. The nearly 200 inaugural participants from over 30 countries and 6 continents deliberated over three days through in-person meetings and web-based collaboration to produce the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (<a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration">http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration</a>) -- an action agenda for promoting the public interest in intellectual property and information law reform around the world.</p>
<p>Sixteen months later, we come together to measure our progress and expand the positive agenda. To this end, we invite applications to attend the Congress and contribute to its deliberations identifying forums where policy is being developed, proposing policies or actions that promote public interest goals and principles, and identifying and planning to respond to research and analysis needs.</p>
<h2>Presentation Opportunities</h2>
<p>Because the primary purpose of the Congress is to promote deliberation and action planning, the opportunities for formal presentation will be somewhat limited. We will, however, have spaces for keynote presentations or panel discussions for each session (see below). In addition, as in the inaugural year, the Congress will host small works-in-progress workshops to allow participants to share their own work and solicit feedback from peers.</p>
<h2>Draft Workshop Sessions</h2>
<p>Six main tracks will include a half day workshop introduced by a
lecture or panel discussion on one or more of the themes noted below.
The keynote introduction will be followed by deliberation in which
participants will, first, review progress and opportunity in existing or
potential policy forums and, second, review the current state of
research and identify policy and empirical research needs and resources.
Tracks will also have opportunities to draft statements or action plans
for adoption at the closing plenary of the Congress or for discussion
and online after the Congress ends.</p>
<p>We encourage applicants to identify specific sessions in which they would like to contribute.</p>
<p><strong>Regulating Intellectual Property</strong>: This session will survey
recent developments and proposals to regulate uses of intellectual
property through other legal doctrines that express and safeguard human
values, including human rights, consumer protection, competition and
privacy laws.<br /><br /><strong>Valuing Openness and the Public Domain</strong>: This
session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that
creative and innovative works ultimately become free for all to use as
part of the public domain, including through open licensing, open
access, open educational resources, open data, open standards, open
government, and related open information policies.<br /><br /><strong>Strengthening Limitations and Exceptions as Enabling Tools for Innovation and Expression</strong>:
This session will survey recent developments and proposals to use
limitations and exceptions as positive enabling doctrines to ensure that
intellectual property law fulfills its ultimate purpose of promoting
essential aspects of the public interest.<br /><br /><strong>Setting Public Interest Priorities for Patent and Research and Development Reform</strong>:
This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure
that patent and other research and development policies serve all
segments of society, and particularly the most disadvantaged, and
accommodate the diverse needs of a complex world with a more diverse
structure of incentives for innovation.<br /><br />Supporting Cultural
Creativity: This session will survey recent developments and proposals
to maximize opportunities for creativity while increasing access to
creative works and helping to end disputes over practices like
non-commercial file-sharing.<br /><br /><strong>Checking Enforcement Excesses</strong>:
This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure
that intellectual property enforcement policies and practices respect
the human rights principle of proportionality and are not used as a
diversion from the difficult task of tailoring intellectual property
norms to their social contexts.<br /><br /><strong>Implementing Development Agendas</strong>:
This session will survey recent developments and proposals to fully
integrate the development dimension into intellectual property policy
and norm-setting at all levels of international and national
intellectual policy making. The session will have a special focus on
developments in the BRICS group of emerging economies.<br /><br /><strong>Targeted Research</strong>:
Given the spectrum of issues described above, what are the key research
needs? Given academic incentive structures, what kinds of research
fall through the cracks? Given the funding crisis in this field, how
can we meet research needs on the cheap? Given the international scope
of many policy issues, how can we work collaboratively and
comparatively? Given the Internet, how can we develop and leverage new
software tools for data collection?<br /><br />In addition to the above
sessions, we invite presentations on other topics relevant to the
positive agenda the Washington Declaration promotes, including:</p>
<ul><li>the role of mobilisation and activism.</li><li>collaboration between ISPs and governments in enforcement</li><li>the ecology of access to educational materials</li><li>designing copyright from scratch</li><li>updates and lessons from specific forms, e.g. WIPO, national legislatures, trade negotiations, etc.<br /></li></ul>
<p>The application form is available <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/globalcongress2012/registration">here</a><a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/public-events/globalcongress2012/registration"></a>. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact<a class="external-link" href="mailto:globalcongress2012@gmail.com"> globalcongress2012@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<h2>Global Congress Planning Committee</h2>
<ol><li>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair</li><li>American Assembly, Columbia University, New York</li><li>International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva</li><li>Centre for Internet and Society, India</li><li>Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative</li><li>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.</li></ol>
<a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Call-for-Participation-and-Save-the-Date.pdf">Click </a>to read the original published in infojustice.org
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-05-02T05:05:57ZBlog Entry2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip
<b>We are pleased to announce the Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion,” and will have a special focus on developments and opportunities in the so-called “BRICS” group of emerging economies. This note invites applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.
</b>
<h2>Application and Cost Information</h2>
<p>The application form is available now at <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/public-events/globalcongress2012/registration">http://infojustice.org/globalcongress2012/registration</a>. Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.</p>
<h2>Deadline</h2>
<ul><li>Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.</li><li>Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.</li><li>Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.</li></ul>
<p>
Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact<a class="external-link" href="mailto:globalcongress2012@gmail.com"> globalcongress2012@gmail.com</a></p>
<hr />
<h2>Global Congress Planning Committee</h2>
<ol><li>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair</li><li>American Assembly, Columbia University, New York</li><li>International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva</li><li>Centre for Internet and Society, India</li><li>Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative</li><li>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.</li></ol>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/public-events/globalcongress2012">Read the original published on infojustice.org</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaEvent TypeIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-05-02T05:04:57ZEventHacking, Modding & Making
https://cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making
<b>Seeber's electronics laboratory is a room in a unit he shares with his mother. Every available space is taken up with teetering towers of electronic parts, writes Brendan Shanahan for GQ.</b>
<p>Like subprime lending or the line at the motor registry, patent and copyright laws control all our lives but no one really understands them. In the world of DIY Tech, however, it is not a subject that can be ignored.</p>
<p>" If they are infringing on patents then it's a question you have to ask within the individual jurisdiction," says Abraham. "In many jurisdictions design many not have protection. Whether it's legal or illegal is an open question."</p>
<p>At its heart Abraham's argument is pragmatic: the developing world, especially China, is too big to stop. Companies can fight patent wars in every world territory, hire private detectives, pressure governments and prosecute consumers who buy rip-off products, but, ultimately, they won't win. The genie is out of the bottle.</p>
<p>"If something has been made technologically possible, we cannot make it illegal and hope that everyone will now pretend that this is no longer technologically possible," says Abraham. "We can't have the government checking everyone's iPod and laptop. The better move is to change the model."</p>
<p>Abraham has many suggestions for making copyright law more flexible to benefit manufacturers and consumers. One thing is certain: in a world in which Amazon, not even five years after the launch of the Kindle, is now selling more e-books than all hard copy books combined, and technology such as 3D printing will soon be standard, it would be unwise to cling to old certainities. The music industry may come to be regarded as merely the canary in a digital coalmine of failed industries.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.brendanshanahan.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/modding-31.jpg">Read the full post here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making'>https://cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPatentsAccess to Knowledge2012-04-09T09:51:41ZNews ItemAn Analysis of the Comments by World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/analysis-of-comments
<b>Rahul Cherian provides an analysis of the comments by the World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association after the 23rd session of the Standing Committee of Copyright and Related Rights.</b>
<p>Before the WIPO intersessionals held on March 23 and 24 at Geneva between some member states to discuss the pending issues related to the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, the World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association came out with their comments/versions on the Chair’s text dated December 16, 2011. The Chair's text with comments of Member States is available <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/chairs-text.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Chair's Text">here</a>. [PDF, 364 Kb]</p>
<p>The World Blind Union document, <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/wbu-document.pdf" class="internal-link" title="The World Blind Union document">available here</a> [PDF, 314 Kb], attempts to build consensus in the text based on suggestions given by various Member States to the Chair’s text dated December 16, 2011. The inputs of Member States that would be beneficial to the intended beneficiaries of the Treaty, namely persons with visual impairment, print disabilities, etc. were incorporated into the World Blind Union document while suggestions of Member States that were detrimental to the intended beneficiaries were not added. As can be seen by the WBU document, several changes suggested by many Member States, including the United States, the European Union, the African Group, Pakistan, India, etc were incorporated into the WBU document. As far as possible the WBU document has tried not to add new wording which were not suggested by Member States to the Chair's text. The WBU document is, in my opinion, a genuine attempt at building consensus between Member States on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired.</p>
<p>On the other hand,<a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Summary of the IPA Position"> the document proposed by the International Publishers Association</a> [PDF, 215 Kb] is a different story. Rather than trying and building consensus, the IPA has taken a stand that is so extreme that the only aspect I could find in the entire document was that it was progressive. In the first paragraph of the introduction the IPA finally recognizes that persons with print disabilities must have access to works at the same time as others. Unfortunately it is all downhill from there. Given below are some of the suggested changes of the IPA and my comments on the IPA document from the perspective of its impact on India and other developing countries.</p>
<ol><li>The IPA proposes the deletion of the following paragraph from the Preamble: “Needing to contribute to the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organization,” <br />From this proposed change, it appears that the IPA is opposed to the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organization. This change is completely unacceptable and unfortunately the further suggestions of the IPA seemed to reflect the anti-development mentality of the IPA.</li><li>The IPA proposes that the exceptions and limitations cover only those works that are release in print format and excludes those works that are “born digital”. This implies that for new books which are going to be released only in digital formats, there should be no exceptions and that the beneficiaries should be able to convert those inaccessible versions into accessible versions. This is also unacceptable since persons with print disabilities must have equal access to all books and not only printed books.</li><li>The IPA proposes that only those organizations that have the “primary” objective of assisting persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access needs shall be entitled to convert or distribute accessible format copies. This would mean those educational institutions and other organizations that make material accessible but not on a primary basis will be excluded. This is totally counterproductive if persons with disabilities are to have really equal access to reading material.</li><li>The IPA proposes that authorized entities must maintain compliance policies and procedures regarding access and IT security that follow internationally recognized standards. It records appropriate usage information and provides this to rights holders in a transparent and timely manner. <br />The compliance with this provision will prove extremely expensive and cumbersome for organizations, particularly those organizations in developing countries who are cash strapped. Moreover, it is unclear what these internationally recognized standards are. This addition is also unacceptable.</li><li>The IPA proposes that only organizations that actually create an accessible format copy can export that copy to organizations in other countries. This would mean that every organization that exports books would have to re-create the accessible format copy thereby leading to tremendous replication of effort and wastage of precious resources. This is extremely counterproductive.</li><li>The IPA proposes to add the following sentence to the text: Member States may choose other means for increasing the availability of accessible format copies, provided these means afford Beneficiaries with equally effective access to Works. <br />By adding this one sentence the Treaty, which is intended to create minimum exceptions in each Member State, permits countries to move away from the E&L regime into a licensing regime. The benefits of the whole treaty could be negated with this one sentence. <br /></li></ol>
<p>Apart from these changes mentioned above, there are several other changes proposed by the IPA which are completely against the spirit of the Treaty. It is sad to note that instead of trying to reach a consensus the IPA has proposed some preposterous changes and negative changes to the text. But given the stand that they have taken in this document, possibly as a last ditch attempt to thwart the growing momentum for the Treaty, it is likely that the IPA’s disguise as a sheep has been blown away to reveal the wolf.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/analysis-of-comments'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/analysis-of-comments</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-03-30T07:34:07ZBlog EntrySummary of the IPA Position
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf
<b>The document proposed by the International Publishers Association.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-03-30T07:30:52ZFile