The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1391 to 1405.
2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest: Call for Participation and Save the Date
http://editors.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='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation'>http://editors.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
http://editors.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='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaEvent TypeIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-05-02T05:04:57ZEventHacking, Modding & Making
http://editors.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='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making'>http://editors.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
http://editors.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="http://editors.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="http://editors.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="http://editors.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='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/analysis-of-comments'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/analysis-of-comments</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-03-30T07:34:07ZBlog EntrySummary of the IPA Position
http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf
<b>The document proposed by the International Publishers Association.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/ipa-position.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-03-30T07:30:52ZFileThe World Blind Union document
http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/wbu-document.pdf
<b> WBU Version of the Working Document</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/wbu-document.pdf'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/wbu-document.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-03-30T07:25:27ZFileExpert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting
<b>This report provides an overview of the discussion from the Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights, organized by ARTICLE 19 in London on November 18, 2011. </b>
<p>At the meeting, nineteen international scholars, experts and human
rights activists met to explore the antagonistic relationship between
Intellectual Property (IP) and the rights to freedom of expression and
information (FoE). This conversation is timely if not overdue, as
governments are increasingly using the pretext of IP protection to place
unjustified restrictions on the exercise of FoE, particularly on the
Internet. ARTICLE 19 believes that increasing the profile of the human
rights perspective in debates on IP law and policy is essential to
protecting FoE, particularly in the digital environment. The objective
of the meeting was therefore to develop an appropriate rights framework
for evaluating IP law and enforcement mechanisms, to advance a policy
paper on the issue and eventually to establish a set of key principles
on IP and FoE.</p>
<p>This report outlines:</p>
<ul><li>A summary of the discussions that took place during the meeting; and</li><li>Outstanding
issues and those requiring follow-up discussion in order to
conceptualise and complete a position paper on the subject. <br /></li></ul>
<h2>List of Participants</h2>
<ol><li>Andrew Puddephatt: Director, Global Partners & Associates</li><li>Brett Soloman: Executive Director, ACCESS.</li><li>Dinah PoKempner: General Counsel, Human Rights Watch.</li><li>Jérémie Zimmermann: Co-founder and spokesperson, LaQuadrature du Net: Internet & Libertés</li><li>Jeremy Malcolm: Project Coordinator for IP and Communications; Consumer International.</li><li>Jim Killock: Executive Director, Open Rights Group</li><li>Michael Camilleri: Human Rights Specialist, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at OAS.</li><li>Michael Geist: Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Univesity of Ottowa.</li><li>Pranesh Prakash: Programme Manager, Center for Internet and Society</li><li>Raegan MacDonald: Policy Analyst, ACCESS (Brussels)</li><li>Saskia Walzel: Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Focus</li><li>Yaman Akdeniz: Associate Professor in Law; Human Rights Law Research Center, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University.</li><li>Walter van Holst: IT legal consultant, Mitopics</li><li>Agnes Callamard: Executive Director, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Barbora Bukovska: Senior Direct for Law and Policy, ARTICLE 19</li><li>David Banisar: Senior Legal Counsel, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Gabrielle Guillemin: Legal Officer, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Andrew Smith: Lawyer, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Michael Polak: Intern, ARTICLE 19</li></ol>
<h2>Welcome, Introductions, Purpose </h2>
<p>Agnès Callamard opened the meeting with a welcome and introduction,
giving a brief overview of ARTICLE 19’s extensive experience over twenty
years bringing together coalitions to increase the profile of various
advocacy issues and develop key policy documents, including the Camden
Principles on FoE and equality, and the Johannesburg Principles on FoE
and national security.</p>
<p>In the last three years, the Internet has increasingly come to the
forefront of ARTICLE 19’s work. During this time it has become clear
that the agenda for protecting IP negatively impacts FoE, and that there
is a notable absence of traditional human rights groups engaged with
the IP agenda or campaigning on its implications for human rights.
ARTICLE 19 believes that there is a clear need for this gap to be
filled, for us to enter this dialogue and challenge current
preconceptions with an alternative human rights narrative that counters
that promoted by IP industries.</p>
<p>The purpose of this meeting, therefore, is to develop a strategy for
promoting the FoE perspective in debates on IP. To do this, it is
important to first conceptualise the relationship between FoE and IP
within a rights framework: to identify how or if these interests should
be balanced and what the areas of conflict and conciliation are. This
discussion should clarify the best way to proceed, with a view to arrive
at a policy paper and eventually a set of principles on how to best
protect FoE in the IP context. </p>
<h3>Session 1: Brief comments by participants on issues of concern for freedom of expression campaigners in relation to IPR</h3>
<p>The objective of the first session was for all participants to
identify the most significant issues in current debates on freedom of
expression and IP, and the extent to which some issues may have been
overlooked, underestimated, or over-emphasised. These issues, ideas and
perspectives would then guide discussions during the remainder of the
meeting and at future meetings.</p>
<p>All participants agreed that applying a human rights framework to
this debate is an important and worthwhile endeavour. The following
issues were identified during the discussions:</p>
<p><strong>Conceptual starting point</strong></p>
<p>Participants agreed that the status quo should not be the “starting
point” for discussions, and that we should avoid being trapped in the
narrative that has been developed and imposed by IP rights holders. This
requires questioning accepted language and norms, pushing the
boundaries of the debate and thinking outside the box. The proliferation
of terms such as “piracy”, “theft” and other criminal law language to
describe non-commercial copyright infringement demonstrates the extent
to which corporate interest groups have controlled the agenda. We should
reject these terms and instead adopt positive language that emphasises
the cultural and economic value of information sharing, and frame IP as a
potential obstacle to these values. This dialogue should recognise that
the relationship between people and information has changed in the
digital age, and that a new generation of people express themselves
through sharing media online and creating new works such as video
mash-ups.</p>
<p><strong>A human right to IP? </strong><br />
Several participants questioned whether we should accept interests in IP
as “human rights”, particularly as the concept is one born from
censorship. Rejecting IP as a human right would require challenging
accepted language such as “intellectual property rights” and “rights
holder”. If we speak of IP interests or claims, rather than human
rights, then it is also inaccurate to speak of their interaction with
other rights as a “conflict between rights” that requires “balancing”.
Instead, certain IP claims, and the detection or enforcement mechanisms
that support them, should be framed as restrictions on the right to
freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Some participants expressed doubts over the value of advocating that
IP is not a human right when the idea is already embedded and various
regional courts have already recognised it as such. Such a campaign
would be difficult and achieve little, particularly as it may require
changing established agreements such as Berne and TRIPS that would take
decades to reform. Staying within the existing legal framework may be
the only pragmatic way to achieve change in the short and medium-term.
There was agreement that understanding how different treaties and human
rights instruments or bodies understand IP is important before
proceeding.</p>
<p>In the alternative, it was suggested that IP could be viewed as a
“human right” to the extent that it complements other human rights, such
as FoE. Copyright is often justified on terms that it is essential for
incentivising creativity and that it is an “engine” of free speech –
this argument needs further exploration, as it shows that the two rights
may sometimes be complementary. ARTICLE 19 is familiar with a strategy
focussed on complementarity, as the Camden Principles promoted a similar
approach to advocate that the right to equality and right to FoE were
mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. Similarly, participants
spoke about a “social value” approach to viewing IP as a human right,
i.e. the greater the social value behind the IP protection, the more
weight it would have in a rights “balancing” exercise.</p>
<p>Other suggestions on reframing or reversing IP preconceptions
included recommending a system where the “public domain” is the norm and
any monopoly interest the exception. Exceptions would have to be argued
on a case-by-case basis and would be granted only when it would be in
the public interest to do so.</p>
<p>A consensus seemed to develop that rejecting the idea of IP as a
right would not be a helpful strategy. However, between the various
alternative suggestions the only agreement seemed to be that the issue
requires more exploration so that the nature of IP as a right can be
better understood. It is anticipated that reaching a definite conclusion
on this issue will inevitably not satisfy everyone, but would be
necessary to proceed with an advocacy campaign.</p>
<p><strong>The Right to Culture</strong><br />
As well as the right to property and the right to freedom of expression,
there is also the right to culture in Article 27 of the UDHR and
Article 15 of the ICESCR. Both instruments reflect the tension between a
right to access culture and the competing right of individuals to
protect the material interests in their intellectual property.
Participants recommended further exploration of the economic, social and
cultural rights perspective on IP issues and integrating this into a
campaign.</p>
<p><strong>Pulling apart multiple IP issues</strong><br />
Participants identified a number of ways in which IP engages freedom of
expression, and that it is therefore important that a FoE analysis dealt
with these issues separately. One focus should be on the IP protections
themselves – these give individuals monopolies over information and
thereby restrict others’ FoE. Within this, the breadth of exceptions
regimes is important, as these vary significantly between countries, in
particular the duration of copyright protection and how ‘fair use’ or
‘fair dealing’ type exceptions are defined. The use of digital rights
management systems (DRMS) as preventative measures also relate to this
area. A second focus, and a current “hot topic” in IP circles, is the
enforcement agenda. This includes the criminalisation of non-commercial
IP infringement, the privatisation of policing IP infringement and its
impact on net neutrality, and criminal and civil law protections for
DRMS.</p>
<p>The difference between types of IP was also discussed. There are
different rationales behind copyright, trademarks, and patents. Our
approach should be as nuanced and specific as possible – when we are
criticising copyright we should only refer to copyright and not IP
generally. Unpacking the issues in relation to the different types of IP
will be important for developing a coherent policy. </p>
<p>The way that international trade agreements have consistently
augmented IP rights was also highlighted. In relation to electronic
data, the copyright holder now has so much control over the use of the
information, particularly through digital rights management systems
protected by the criminal law, that purchasing such products is
increasingly more like renting than owning. This augmentation should be
tracked and highlighted in an advocacy campaign. </p>
<p><strong>Advocacy Strategy</strong><br />
It was also noted that developing a human rights perspective on IP is
not only an intellectual pursuit but needs to be viewed in terms of a
citizen movement capable of achieving outcomes. Participants identified
several further issues that should be considered when developing an
advocacy strategy.</p>
<p>One consideration would be how we develop campaigning alliances. Some
industries are potential allies, in particular Internet intermediaries
that are increasingly under pressure to be the private police of
copyright holders. Some artists themselves are also sympathetic to FoE
arguments. More obviously, consumers and information users should be
mobilised by a campaign. It is important to develop distinct strategies
for targeting identified groups that reflects our understanding of their
diverse interests; this would allow us to build commonalities between
actors who may normally be regarded as having divergent objectives, and
mobilise each to push for change in a direction that supports our
ultimate goal.</p>
<p>Central to a campaign strategy is also the idea of having a clear
message as to what the problem is and how it impacts people on a day to
day basis. The utility of graphics illustrating the inequitable
geographic distribution of IP interests was recommended as a useful tool
to demonstrate the scale of this global problem. Ways of countering
campaigns conducted by IP holders over the last two decades were also
discussed, in particular how to push back against the idea of copyright
infringement as “theft”, as has been promoted through slogans such as
“you wouldn’t steal a handbag.” Illustrative analogies were discussed,
including viewing IP infringement as mere trespass rather than theft and
as “copying” rather than depriving a person of property. However, it
was concluded that these analogies were helpful for developing our
understanding of the issues, but would not be as effective as campaign
tools. An effective campaign would have to distinguish between
background issues and our actual advocacy points, which would be
focussed on a clear set of key fundamental principles.</p>
<p>Participants also identified the importance of engaging governments
and the media on the inconsistency of their policies and coverage of FoE
and IP. The US, in particular, is loudly proclaiming its commitments to
FoE on-line whilst simultaneously promoting aggressive enforcements
mechanisms for IP that directly undermine FoE rights. </p>
<p>The campaign against ACTA in the European Parliament (EP) was also
recommended as a platform from which to launch further dialogue on FoE
and IP. Since the meeting, ARTICLE 19 has released a statement on ACTA
that we have shared with all participants, and plans to circulate this
statement to various EP committees and MEPs in the coming weeks.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Opportunities for strategic litigation were also identified. In
particular, there are a number of Article 10 ECHR cases pending before
the European Court of Human Rights on the blocking of websites, many
being from Turkey. </p>
<h3>Session 2: The tension between freedom of expression and IPR</h3>
<p>The second session began with a presentation by Gabrielle of the
background paper on intellectual property and freedom of expression.
Participants gave feedback on issues raised in the paper and suggested
ways of developing it into a policy paper to compliment an advocacy
campaign.</p>
<p>Gabrielle’s opening comments acknowledged that the background paper
is very much focussed on FoE in the digital age, and is centred more on
copyright rather than trademarks and patents. Gabrielle outlined the way
in which conflicts between tangible property rights and freedom of
expression have been dealt with by the ECHR. She also identified key
challenges to reframing understandings of IP, in particular in relation
to the notion that the public domain and information sharing should be
the norm while information monopolies should be the exception. Gabrielle
also highlighted the timeliness of this discussion as significant
changes to the enforcement agenda are taking place; including the
criminalisation of copyright infringement and DRMS circumvention.</p>
<p>Participants agreed that the policy paper was an excellent starting
point for discussions on FoE and IP, and recommended a number of areas
for further elaboration in future drafts:</p>
<ul><li>The objective tone of the paper, placing ARTICLE 19 as an impartial arbiter, is a productive starting point.</li><li>The legal framework for IP/FoE should be elaborated to acknowledge
the right to culture as contained in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article
15 of the IESCR. The ways that states periodically report their IESCR
compliance could be explored.</li><li>Intermediaries should be referred to in broader terms than just as
ISPs. “Information society service providers” is an umbrella phrase
that includes search engines, advertisers, payment services. </li><li>The Scarlett decision by the ECJ should be incorporated once it is released.<a name="fr2" href="#fn2">[2]</a></li><li>The concept of “filtering” is essentially a type of “blocking”,
both may be referred to as censorship to clarify their immediate impact
on FoE.</li><li>Some participants felt that explaining why the FoE implications are different for civil and criminal law would be helpful. </li><li>Participants felt that the section on the implications of the ACTA regime could be built upon.<a name="fr3" href="#fn3">[3]</a></li><li>In developing the section on FoE rights, the Latin American view
of FoE as a collective right may also be worth emphasising. It may also
be worth comparing the potential balance between IP and FoE to other
balancing exercises related to privacy or reputational rights. </li><li>The differences between copyright, trademarks and patents should be explained. </li><li>A section outlining the philosophical foundations of these
protections, in particular the difference between the US (incentivise
creation) and European (natural rights) approach to IP might also be
helpful. </li><li>It should be stressed that the failure of IP law to adapt to new
technologies is the problem, not new technologies themselves. This
failure undermines the justifications for protecting IP rights. </li><li>Greater emphasis should be placed on the way in which the current
legal framework is based on an ideal of an 18th century author, and does
not acknowledge the impact of IP on scientific research and
collaboration, indigenous knowledge, peer-to-peer sharing, the creative
power of new technology etc. </li><li>Positive examples of IP infringement would be useful for
illustrating why IP protection shouldn’t be safeguarded at all costs. In
particular, efforts to make works more accessible to minority language
speakers (crowd-sourcing methods in particular) and the impact that IP
law has on blind people’s access to information. </li><li>Similarly, examples of censorship that make the impact of IP
protections of FoE clearer to policy makers would be helpful in
debunking the myth that the interests of the IP industry giants are
synonymous with those of the individual creators. </li><li>It would also be helpful to illustrate that IP protection is also a
geographic concentration of wealth issues as much as a moral issue.<a name="fr4" href="#fn4">[4]</a></li><li>The role of de minimis exception regimes in protecting FoE should also be explored in greater depth. </li><li>Several sources were also recommended, including the Association
littéraire et artistique internationale (ALAI)<a name="fr5" href="#fn5">[5]</a>, the International
Federation of Libraries Association (Stuart Hamilton identified as a
contact)<a name="fr6" href="#fn6">[6]</a> and the OSCE study on Internet Freedom.<a name="fr7" href="#fn7">[7]</a></li></ul>
<h3>Session 3: Key questions, issues and challenges</h3>
<p>Dave chaired a third session to elaborate upon the key issues
discussed prior to lunch, with a view to reaching some level of
consensus on the appropriate scope of restrictions on freedom of
expression in defence of IPR.</p>
<p>Gabrielle offered comments on the balance that could be applied
between the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) and
the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). However, as
the European Court of Human Rights has not ruled on the balance that
ought to be struck between these two rights in the context of
intellectual property, it is difficult to speculate on how it would be
litigated.</p>
<p>Participants agreed that the ‘public interest’ is central to
assessing when property rights can be restricted to promote other
rights, including FoE. The need to stress the importance of the Internet
as a public forum was also identified. </p>
<p>The participants also discussed what limitations are appropriate to
place on IP rights. Various ideas were suggested, but it was concluded
that any recommended framework on the substance of IP rights would have
to be compliant with the Berne Convention. This means that in terms of
copyright duration, the minimum that could be recommended is 50 years.
It was also stated that any system that recommends a default public
domain with a system of registration for copyright “exceptions” would
not be compliant with Berne. The augmentation of IP rights through these
international agreements was again referenced, as there appears to have
been a pattern of the US and EU exporting the worst aspects of their IP
regimes abroad through trade arrangements without elaborating on how
exceptions to IP rights should be developed. It was also noted that
copyright holders will continue to support this process, as their
business model depends upon having as much control over the use of
information as possible.</p>
<p>Again participants identified the need to distinguish between the
limitations that are imposed on FoE by the IP rights themselves, those
limitations imposed by preventative technological measures and those
imposed by enforcement mechanisms.</p>
<p>The importance of distinguishing the different actors involved was
also emphasised, i.e. whether we are discussing competing rights between
private creators (e.g. original creator vs. derivative creator) or the
direct relationship between the state and individuals (e.g. enforcement
of criminal provisions against an individual infringing IP). It is
important that our analysis does not conflate private actors with state
actors, and that it is clear what positive and negative obligations are
on these parties and the rationale for their application. </p>
<p>It was suggested that an approach that balances competing human
rights is appropriate where the interests of two creators are in
conflict, but perhaps not when the state intervenes to prevent or punish
IP infringements. Where the state acts to restrict an individual’s
access to the Internet, it is not a balance issue but an unnecessary and
disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Participants stressed the economic and social significance of blanket
(and even many specific) restrictions on Internet access. Blanket
prohibitions on access to the Internet was compared to solitary
confinement, and participants agreed that sanctions such as these are
never necessary or proportionate responses to IP infringement. An
analogy was made to a statement recently issued by ARTICLE 19 on
services to counterfeit mobile telephones being shut down in Kenya.<a name="fr8" href="#fn8">[8]</a>
Participants also indicated that these blanket measures are increasingly
rare, but that states still violate the principles of necessity and
proportionality through limitations that they impose. </p>
<p>Further FoE concerns were raised in relation to the enforcement of IP
rights in the digital environment. In order to monitor the Internet for
IP infringement, it is necessary to monitor the content of all Internet
communications. This has implications for FoE rights and privacy
rights, and has a potential chilling effect on all on-line expression.</p>
<p>There was also some discussion on defining what our working
definition of FoE should be in this context, particularly in relation to
use of new technologies and DRMS. Does FoE necessarily include the
right to scan a document, to use translation technology on it, to copy
and paste, to save in various formats etc?</p>
<p>Participants also discussed that the ordinary de minimis exceptions
cannot simply be transplanted and applied as ‘exceptions’ or defences to
DRMS circumvention offences. DRMS limit the use of works severely, and
unless you have the technical knowledge to circumvent these devices, it
is not possible to take advantage of exceptions or defences.</p>
<p>There were also discussions on access to justice issues, due to the
prohibitively expensive cost of contesting litigation against large
corporations.</p>
<p>Several participants mentioned that discussions on these issues have a
tendency to become too narrow in their focus. Examples given were that
the focus drifts to copyright rather than trademarks and patents, that
peer2peer sharing gets more attention than other technology uses, and
that artistic expression is talked about but not technical or scientific
forms of expression. At the same time, some participants expressed an
aversion to a “kitchen sink” approach in any campaign, as it may result
in an incoherent message.</p>
<p>Various sources were recommended for further reading. These included a
report by Consumers International on best state practices (Brazil,
Canada and South Africa mentioned for enacting progressive legislation
recently),<a name="fr9" href="#fn9">[9]</a> and the UN guidelines on consumer protection.<a name="fr10" href="#fn10">[10]</a></p>
<h3>Session 4: Measures for protecting and enforcing IP rights on the Internet: finding a better balance with FOE</h3>
<p>At the fourth session, Barbora chaired a discussion on procedural
issues that pose a threat to freedom of expression and Internet freedom.
Key issues identified at the outset were whether sticking to a human
rights view that judicial oversight is the best option or is there a
human rights compliant alternative model? As it was decided in the
previous session that disconnection is disproportionate, are all forms
of criminal liability for Internet use disproportionate? And what limits
should be placed on civil remedies, such as damages-award ceilings.</p>
<p>Discussions began on whether an administrative model for notice and
takedown would be appropriate. Advantages that were identified of
non-judicial models include:</p>
<ul><li>An administrative system is more effective in terms of time and
cost. The number of notice and takedown requests that happen on-line
would overwhelm a traditional judicial organ.</li><li>Protections for intermediaries from liability can be built into the system.</li><li>Guidelines can ensure compliance with legal certainty,
transparency, due process, specificity of remedies, protections for the
identities of users. </li><li>Could also be subject to judicial oversight.</li><li>That limitations on cost would also “disarm” corporations who
would not be able to threaten expensive court procedures that intimidate
individuals into prematurely settling civil actions. </li><li>The need for fast remedies in digital infringements was also
stressed. For example, a website may be created only for the 90 minutes
of a football game and then disappear – traditional judicial methods
cannot be used to provide redress in these circumstances. Although this
may appear to be a “shoot first, aim later” approach, one needs to
consider these pragmatic concerns. An administrative model is better
suited to this than a judicial system. </li><li>Alternatives to an administrative model included the use of
non-legal ombudsmen or arbitration proceedings. These measures could
also keep costs low. <br />
</li></ul>
<p>A number of participants disagreed that an administrative model was
appropriate. Their concerns focussed on the following issues:</p>
<ul><li>That the independence of an administrative body could not be guaranteed.</li><li>That an administrative procedure should never be used to impose criminal liability.</li><li>The procedural guarantees in an administrative system are less
robust, particularly in countries that do not have a strong separation
of powers. <br />
</li><li>That the time and cost of a judicial system is necessary to comply with international human rights standards. </li></ul>
<p>Concerns were also raised about recommending any boilerplate solution
that should be ‘copy and pasted’ into all national contexts without
adequate consideration being paid to that country’s legal system or
traditions. In terms of accuracy of language, it was also commented that
notice and takedown affects hosts of content, and not ISPs, who are
mere conduits.</p>
<p>Systems in place in Canada and Japan for “notice and notice” were
also discussed. In these systems, the IP holder notifies the
intermediary, who notifies the user, who has a time to reply before
action is taken. The role of the intermediary in this system is to
facilitate communications and they are not subject to liability. The
accommodation of “emergency requests” could also be considered within
this system.</p>
<p>With any notice and takedown system it would also be important to
make it clear to those controlling the content how you object to a
takedown notice. Access to justice principles are important here,
particularly considering the amount of misinformation that has
circulated in recent years on the nature of IP infringement.</p>
<p>Various examples were given of forum shopping by IP owners in
provincial courthouses where judges are less experienced in IP law and
therefore more responsive to the arguments of IP holders.</p>
<p>There was also a discussion on why copyright holders would favour
criminal sanctions as opposed to civil remedies. On the one hand, it
seems intuitive that the rights holder would rather receive damages than
have a person fined or imprisoned by the government. It was suggested
that the criminal law has the advantage of having a more significant
chilling effect. Also, in criminal cases, the costs of detection and
enforcement can be placed on the state.</p>
<p>A number of initial principles were identified through this discussion:</p>
<ul><li>Intermediaries should be immunised from civil liability.</li><li>There should not be liability for hyperlinking. It must be distinguished from “re-publication”. </li><li>Non-commercial infringement should not be criminalized. It was
noted that TRIPS requires commercial scale infringement to be
criminalized. Narrowly defining what is meant by “commercial” is
important:<br />
</li></ul>
<ol><li>Peer-to-peer sharing should not be considered commercial.</li><li>IP infringement committed by individuals should not be considered commercial. <br />
</li></ol>
<ul><li>The need for clarity in the law and for information on IP law to
be available to end-users facing litigation threats from copyright
holders. In particular, states should educate individuals in the
exceptions to copyright protections that serve the public interest.</li><li>Possible limitations on damages could be developed.</li></ul>
<h3>Session 5: Political developments and strategies of response</h3>
<p>The purpose of the fifth session was to provide participants with the
opportunity to discuss developing strategies for working together to
better combat governments’ attempts at restricting FoE on the basis of
protecting IP.</p>
<p>The first priority that was identified was to finalise a policy paper
on the issue. This would perhaps take some time to formulate, and may
require further meetings to discuss key issues.</p>
<p>A second priority for advocacy was identified in relation to ACTA,
which will be voted upon by the European Parliament in the coming
months. ARTICLE 19 has issued a statement on ACTA that will also be
circulated among participants.</p>
<p>A third discussion concerned the possibility of uncovering a
wikileaks-type “scandal” in which the hypocrisy of copyrights holders,
and their true motivations, could be exposed. Receiving internal emails
from whistleblowers interested in exposing such a story would provide a
good media storm in which to launch an advocacy campaign. Examples of IP
industries illegally lobbying governments or interfering with the
administration of justice would be helpful. The involvement of the
British Phonographic Industry in lobbying for the Digital Economy Act
was referenced in this discussion.</p>
<p>The utility of engaging with the copyright industries was also
discussed. These industries have a reputation for not negotiating– they
want as much control over information as possible, as control is
essential to their business model. There may be some utility in
identifying who our enemies’ enemies are. It was mentioned that the
occupy movements may be interested in pursuing a human rights narrative
against corporate property interests. These groups are very much engaged
in promoting FoE rights. The traditional media was also identified as a
group that may be interested in supporting a movement for greater FoE
protections against IP.</p>
<p>In terms of developing strategy, it was also recommended that we look
at successful human rights campaigns from the past, particularly any in
the field of cultural rights. Potential partners for coalition building
need to be looked at, and many of these partners may be within emerging
economies such as BRIC or South Africa.</p>
<p>As we develop a strategy, we need to remain focussed on framing this
battle as a human rights fight. We need to identify victims,
perpetrators, and a call to action. A different plan may be needed for
each audience that we identify. From the experience of activists at the
meeting, theoretical arguments will not succeed in rousing a
people-driven campaign. The use of new media, such as campaign videos on
youtube, that clearly outline the human rights case would be helpful.
It is also necessary to bridge the gap between popular campaigns and
videos, and getting those campaigns into the mainstream media and
creating a political issue out of it. As technology users that would be
interested in this campaign tend not to vote, making this a political
issue means making people who do vote understand the issue as one that
is a mass-scale human rights violation.</p>
<h2>Concluding comments and closing</h2>
<p>Agnès closed the session by identifying several key steps:</p>
<ul><li>The need to revise the policy paper in light of discussions throughout the day’s sessions.</li><li>The need to meet again to discuss the revised policy paper and to continue these discussions.</li><li>The objective of developing our role as advocates, identifying
what we can initiate, what existing efforts we can support, and what our
overall strategy should be.</li></ul>
<hr />
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>].ARTICLE 19 statement “European Parliament must reject ACTA”, see: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn2" href="#fr2">2</a>].This judgment has since been released. See ARTICLE 19 press release: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice"> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn3" href="#fr3">3</a>].ARTICLE 19 has since released a statement on ACTA. See:<a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)"> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn4" href="#fr4">4</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png">http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png</a> was recommended for its map of patent distribution in 2002.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn5" href="#fr5">5</a>].ALAI homepage: <a class="external-link" href="http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24">http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn6" href="#fr6">6</a>].See a list of publications at: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifla.org/en/publications">http://www.ifla.org/en/publications</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn7" href="#fr7">7</a>].OSCE study “Freedom of Expression on the Internet” (2010): <a class="external-link" href="http://www.osce.org/fom/80723">http://www.osce.org/fom/80723</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn8" href="#fr8">8</a>].ARTICLE 19 statement on FoE and counterfeit mobile telephones: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn9" href="#fr9">9</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist">http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn10" href="#fr10">10</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/consumption_en.pdf">http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/consumption_en.pdf</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-03-16T07:41:39ZBlog EntryPatented Games
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games
<b>Some prefer Steve Jobs, patron saint of perfection, others prefer Nicholas Negroponte, messiah of the masses. While Mr Jobs may be guilty of contributing to the digital divide, Mr Negroponte may have contributed to bridging it with his innovation: the One Laptop Per Child, also known as the $100 laptop or XO. Sunil Abraham's column was published in the Economic Times on 8 March 2012. </b>
<p>Much ink has been spilt celebrating the contributions of both, but if we were to judge them by utilising evidence from the market, their technologies are used by a rather thin section of the pyramid.</p>
<p>For this writer, however, the real heroes are entrepreneurs from China and Taiwan who make technology that is used by millions of Indians and other consumers across the globe. Sometimes it comes with domestic branding and with all the right peripherals - for example, in India, the Popkorn, which costs only Rs 6,699. It features support for two SIM cards, a receiver for analogue terrestrial television, a receiver for FM radio, a 3.2-megapixel camera, boom-box style internal speakers and, most impressively, a pica projector. It ships with a tripod stand, external speakers, a torch and a laser pointer. It is a classroom in a box. At other times, it comes as a Shanzhai clone of a branded product - for example, the Blackcherry, at one-sixth the price-point with twice the number of cameras as the Blackberry. Some Shanzhai phones support four SIM cards and ship with a spare battery.</p>
Dual- and quad-SIM support is critical in developing countries, especially Africa, where regulation has failed to rationalise interconnection costs. Most of the global south is yet to harvest the digital dividend, so TV reception is very useful indeed. And the additional battery is invaluable for rural entrepreneurs who are not sure whether their next halt will sync with the local load-shedding schedule.
<p> The same with the focus on audio capabilities, reflecting the communal usage patterns. Unlike many expensive big-brand phones that require purchase of additional software, these phones often have in-built support for a wide variety of proprietary and open file formats.</p>
<p>These products are unavailable in the US and Europe because they would be sued out of the market by rights-holders or snuffed out by enforcement activities. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, says "smartphones might involve as many as 2,50,000 (largely questionable) patent claims". But there are three important differences for the Indian consumer. One, many of these patents are registered in the US, Europe and Japan and, therefore, prevent others from securing those patents in other jurisdictions. But it does not prevent Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs from using the patents. Two, unlike the US patent law, the Indian Patent Act does not consider "mathematical or a business method or computer program per se or algorithms" as inventions. And three, Indian courts, unlike their US and European counterparts, are less likely to grant injunctions preventing sale or use of any device.</p>
<p>
Patent pools are a century-old policy tool for reducing royalties and uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers. In 1917, the US government forced aircraft patent-holders, including the famous Wright Brothers, into a patent pool that allowed 60 firms to produce planes at reduced royalty costs without worrying about litigation. Since then, the US government has issued thousands of compulsory licences in many different domains. Patent pools do exist in some areas of mobile technologies such as GSM and video file formats, but more patent pools are needed.</p>
<p>The Chinese government has used standards policy in the past to reduce outgoing royalties on information and communication technologies. They promoted or mandated indigenous standards either as a negotiating tactic with rights-holders or to benefit from cross-licensing of domestic IP. Some standards include TD-SCDMA, as an alternative to Qualcomm's CDMA, EVD as an alternative to the DVD standard, and CBHD as an alternative to Sony's Blu-ray. The potential savings were quite significant. In the words of Ma Jun, Deutsche Bank's chief China economist, "There is almost no profit for Chinese DVD makers as they have to pay about $7 in licensing fees to foreign patent holders per DVD player, which are sold at around $20 only - both at home and abroad."</p>
<p>
In addition to patent and standards policy, royalty caps have been used to ensure access to innovative technologies. Till the end of 2009, the Indian government had imposed a royalty cap of 5% on domestic sales and 8% on exports. If a company wanted to pay higher royalties, permission had to be secured from an inter-ministerial Project Approval Board. Between 1991 and 2009, only 8,062 approvals were granted, indicating our government was keen to reduce outgoing royalties. Policymakers could reconsider reintroducing such royalty caps for devices that cost less than $200.</p>
(<em>The author is with the Centre for Internet and Society</em>)
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/guest-writer/smartphones-tablets-and-the-patent-wars/articleshow/12182077.cms">Read the original published in the Economic Times</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games</a>
</p>
No publishersunilPatentsAccess to Knowledge2012-03-08T12:14:22ZBlog EntryConsumers International Global Meeting 2012
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-meeting-2012
<b>Pranesh Prakash participated in the Consumers International Global Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur on March 8 and 9, 2012. He spoke on UN Consumer Guidelines. Robin Brown, Tobias Schönwetter and Guilherme Varella were the other speakers in the session.</b>
<h3>Wednesday 7 March</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> 6:45pm</td>
<td>Anwar Fazal speech on 50th anniversary of JFK Consumer Rights</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> <br />
7:00pm</td>
<td>Dinner hosted by FOMCA</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Thursday 8 March</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>8:30am</td>
<td>Registration<br />
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9:00am</td>
<td>Welcome (Helen McCallum)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9:30am <br /></td>
<td>Introduction and overview (Jeremy Malcolm)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 10:00am</td>
<td>Introduction to Digital Personal Property (Paul Sweazey)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 11:00am</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 11:30am</td>
<td>UN Consumer Guidelines (Robin Brown, Tobias Schönwetter, Pranesh Prakash, Guilherme Varella)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:00pm</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2:00pm</td>
<td>Consumer Protection and IP Abuse Prevention under the WTO Framework (George Tian)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> <br />
3:00pm</td>
<td>Internet governance and consumers (Peng Hwa Ang)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:00pm</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:30pm <br /></td>
<td>Public Interest Representation in the Information Society (Norbert Bollow)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5:30pm</td>
<td>Consumers in the information society (Jeremy Malcolm)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6:30pm</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 7:30pm </td>
<td>Cultural and culinary outing to pasar malam</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Friday 9 March</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>8:30am</td>
<td>Registration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 9:00am</td>
<td>M-Lab (Lih Shiun Goh from Google Singapore)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:00am</td>
<td> Internet and human rights (Alan Finlay from Association for Progressive Communications)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:00am <br /></td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 11:30am </td>
<td>Global consumer survey on broadband (Jeremy Malcolm, Veridiana Alimonti, Elise Davidson, Marzena Kisielowska-Lipman)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:00pm </td>
<td> Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2:00pm</td>
<td> Cyber-security concerns for consumers and businesses (Raj Kumar, IMPACT)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3:00pm</td>
<td>Broadband nutrition label (Benjamin Lennett, New America Foundation)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:00pm </td>
<td> Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:30pm</td>
<td>Reporting back – open time for member presentations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6.00 pm<br /></td>
<td>Close</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Abstracts and biographies</h2>
<h3>United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection</h3>
<p>This paper provides background to the proposed amendments to update the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection for the digital age. A soft-law instrument, the Guidelines provide an influential standard for the dissemination of good practices in consumer protection, as a mechanism to foster and promote social and economic development. They outline eight areas for developing policies for consumer protection, which are reflected by the eight consumer rights declared by the global consumer movement: rights to satisfaction of basic needs, safety, choice, information, consumer education, redress, representation and a health environment.<br /><br />The paper outlines the current global regime of public policy developmment and regualtion relating to access to knowledge. Indicating that many of the issues of concern in terms of access to knowledge are essentially consumer issues it argues that amendments to the Guidelines would form the basis for progress. The paper then details the proposed amendments explaining the basis for each one.<br /><br />Joining Robin Brown on the panel will be representatives from our research partners in India, Brazil and South Africa who will be contributing to our research on the Guidelines.<br /><br />Robin Brown has 25 years of experience in consumer and business regulatory affairs. He spent 10 years as the chair and chief executive of Australia’s national consumer body, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Robin has been involved in projects to advance consumer protection and competition policy and regulation in a number of developing countries. In recent years Robin has served as a Councilor of the Australian Consumers’ Association. He holds a BA and a Master of Public Policy from the Australian National University.<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash is Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. He is a graduate with a degree in Arts and Law from National Law School, Bangalore, with a keen interest in the law, economics, and culture of intellectual property rights. He helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years. He is most interested in interdisciplinary research on IP and property law, freedom of speech, and privacy. He has worked with practising lawyers, civil society organizations, and law firms.<br /><br />Tobias Schönwetter is a Senior Manager within PricewaterhouseCoopers' South African practice performing legal advisory services specifically relating to innovation, technology and intellectual property (copyright and trademarks). Tobias has studied and practised law in Germany, the US and South Africa and he has led the copyright division at UCT's Intellectual Property Law and Policy Research Unit for several years. His international experience, together with his leadership roles in a number of intellectual property-related projects and research collaborations such as the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge (ACA2K) project and the Open AIR (African Innovation Research and Training) project, has secured his place as an industry expert within the intellectual property and technology sector.<br /><br />Guilherme Varella is a lawyer at Idec (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense) in telecomunications, Internet and access to knowledge and Master's student in public policies of culture in the Law School of Universidade de São Paulo (University of São Paulo - USP).</p>
<p>The event was sponsored by the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute and IDRC/CRDI. For more information, <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/infosoc2012#un-consumer-guidelines">see here</a> on the Access to Knowledge website.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-meeting-2012'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-meeting-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaConsumer RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-04-03T07:54:56ZNews ItemWeb Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective
http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/web-accessibility-policy-making-an-international-perspective
<b>G3ict and CIS are pleased to announce the publication of a new, improved edition of the Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective. The report published in cooperation with the Hans Foundation provides an updated synopsis of the many policies that governments have implemented around the world to ensure that the Internet and websites are accessible to persons with disabilities. </b>
<p>The report contains a Foreword by Axel Leblois, Founder and Executive Director of G3ict, an introduction and studies from countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union. The report contains contributions from Prashanth Ramadas, Asma Tajuddin, G Aravind, Katie Reisner, Sucharita Narasimhan, Bama Balakrishnan and Nirmita Narasimhan. Axel Leblois, Donal Rice, Immaculada Placienca Porrero, Kevin Carey, Licia Sbattella and Sunil Abraham are the expert reviewers.</p>
<h2>Foreword by Axel Leblois</h2>
<p>This third edition of our joint report with CIS “WEB ACCESSIBILITY POLICY MAKING: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” provides an updated synopsis of the many policies that governments have implemented around the world to ensure that the Internet and web sites are accessible to persons with disabilities. With 153 countries parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as of December 2011, an increasing number of governments are now in the midst of developing policies and programs to ensure that web sites and services under their jurisdictions are accessible.</p>
<p>Indeed, the Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes “the importance of accessibility to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Its article 9 stipulates that: “To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems” (1). It further specifies that “State Parties shall also take appropriate measures to … Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet” (2.g).</p>
<p>There is therefore no doubt that all State Parties have an obligation to act upon those commitments. However, as this report demonstrates it clearly, web accessibility policies and their levels of enforcement vary considerably among countries with some common denominators such as the compliance with the W3C – WAI guidelines on web accessibility.</p>
<p>G3ict and CIS hope that this new, improved edition, which will now be available in print as well as in electronic format, will help accelerate the development of web accessibility policies and programs around the world. We want to express our sincere appreciation to Nirmita Narasimhan, programme manager at CIS and editor of the G3ict Publications and Reports for her dedication to this report which would not have been made possible without her incredible work and motivation as Disability Advocate.</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/web-accessibility.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Web Accessibility Policy Making">Download a PDF of the Web Accessibility Policy Making here</a> [335 KB]</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/daisy-file" class="internal-link" title="Web Accessibility (Daisy) File">Download the Daisy File</a> [23412 KB]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/web-accessibility-policy-making-an-international-perspective'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/web-accessibility-policy-making-an-international-perspective</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaFeaturedAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-09-25T05:33:25ZBlog EntryGandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright
<b>To commemorate Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary, the Centre for Internet and Society cordially invites you to a talk by Prof. Shyamkrishna Balganesh of the University of Pennsylvania on Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright on 30 January 2012 at 6.00 p.m.
</b>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>When the copyright on Rabindranath Tagore's writings were to expire, his estate sought (and got) an extension in copyright term. But when the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi's writings were to expire, the trustees did not seek such an extension, in deference to Gandhi's views on copyright. On the cover of the first English edition of the Hind Swaraj, it states: "No Rights Reserved". Was Gandhi a Wikipedian at heart, and a prophet who foresaw the 'copyright wars' and had his own visions of how far free culture and free knowledge activism could and could not go?</p>
<h3>Description<br /></h3>
<p>Central to modern discussions of copyright law is the conflict between copyright’s role as a market-based mechanism of cultural production and its detrimental effects on access to knowledge, free speech, and cultural creativity. So divisive is this debate in the world of copyright law today that some have characterized it as the ongoing “copyright wars”. In January 2009, when copyright in all of Gandhi’s works expired, to the absolute surprise of many, the Navjivan Trust,to whom Gandhi had transferred the copyright in his works, chose not to seek a statutory extension of copyright.</p>
<p>The Trust’s firm decision rested in large part on Gandhi’s unease with copyright law, and his reluctant acceptance of its benefits. Gandhi’s opinions on copyright law reveal a rather concerted attempt to grapple with the innumerable public and private trade-offs that are central to the institution, which are today seen as the very basis of the copyright wars. Much like Gandhi’s views on other issues, they reveal a pragmatism, nuance, and creative engagement, which likely emanate from Gandhi’s training as a lawyer. Instead of simplistically rejecting the institution in its entirety, Gandhi saw copyright law for what it is—an important social compromise—and sought to engage with it in a way that tracked his beliefs on other issues.<br /><br />This talk will argue that the nuances of Gandhi’s engagement with copyright law hold important lessons for thinking about copyright law in society, and for managing its complex trade-offs. Gandhi’s thinking on the topic anticipated many of the modern dilemmas about the structure and function of copyright law--such as the role of exclusivity, the importance of control and integrity, and the costs and benefits of licensing revenues. And while Gandhi may not have had a clear (or unambiguously correct) solution to any of them, he almost certainly asked the right questions.</p>
<h3>About the Speaker</h3>
<p>Shyam Balganesh’s scholarship focuses on understanding how intellectual property and innovation policy can benefit from the use of ideas, concepts and structures from different areas of the common law. His most recent work tries to understand copyright law’s pre-requisite of “copying” for liability, as a mechanism of pluralistic decision-making that allows it to incorporate both utilitarian and rightsbased considerations into its functioning.</p>
<p>Balganesh received his J.D. from the Yale Law School, where he was an Articles and Essays Editor of the Yale Law Journal and a Student Fellow at the Information Society Project (ISP). Prior to that he spent two years as a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, and received a B.C.L. and an M.Phil in Law from Oxford University.</p>
<p>His recent publications include: ‘“Hot News’: The Enduring Myth of Property in News,” 111 Columbia Law Review 419 (2011); “The Pragmatic Incrementalism of Common Law Intellectual Property,” 63 Vanderbilt Law Review 1543 (2010); and “Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives,” 122 Harvard Law Review 1569 (2009), among others. He is also currently editing a collection of scholarly essays on the topic of intellectual property and the common law, scheduled to be published by the Cambridge University Press in 2012.</p>
<p><strong>VIDEO</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLshX8A.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed style="display:none" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLshX8A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/gandhi-freedom-and-copyright</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaEvent TypeVideoCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-04-28T04:11:01ZEventThe Digital Classroom: Social Justice and Pedagogy
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/facultyworkshop
<b>What happens when we look at the classroom as a space of social justice? What are the ways in which students can be engaged in learning beyond rote memorisation? What innovative methods can be evolved to make students stakeholders in their learning process? These were some of the questions that were thrown up and discussed at the 2 day Faculty Training workshop for participant from colleges included in the Pathways to Higher Education programme, supported by Ford Foundation and collaboratively executed by the Higher Education Innovation and Research Application and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.</b>
<p></p>
<p>The workshop focused on 3 chief challenges in contemporary
pedagogy and teaching in higher education in India as identified by <a class="external-link" href="http://heira.in/">HEIRA</a>: The need for innovative
curricula, challenges to social justice in education, and possibilities offered
by the intersection of digital and internet technologies with classroom
teaching and evaluation. In the open discussions, the participating faculty
members used their multidisciplinary skills and teaching experience to look at possibilities that we might implement in our classrooms to create a more
inclusive and participatory environment. The conversations were varied, and
through 3 blog entries I want to capture the focus points of the workshop. In
this first post, I focus specifically on the changing nature of student
engagement with education and innovative ways by which we can learn from the
digital platforms of learning and knowledge production and implement certain
innovations in pedagogy that might better help create inclusive and just learning
environments in the undergraduate classroom in India.</p>
<p><strong>Peer 2 Peer:</strong> One of the observations that was made
unanimously by all the faculty members was that students respond better, learn
faster, engage more deeply with their syllabus when the instructor has a
personal rapport with them. Traditionally, the teachers who have established
human contact which goes beyond the call of duty are also the teachers that
have become catalysts and inspirations for the students. Especially with the
digital aesthetics of non-hierarchical information interaction, this has become
the call of the day.</p>
<p>Establishing the teacher as a peer within the classroom,
rather than the fountainhead of information flow, is an experiment worth
conducting. Like on other digital platforms, can we think of the classroom as a
space where the interlocutors each bring their life experience and learning to
start an information exchange and dialogue that would make them stakeholders in
the process of learning? This would mean that the teacher would be a <em>facilitator</em> who builds conditions of
knowledge production and dissemination, thus also changing his/her relationship
with the idea of curriculum and teaching.</p>
<p><strong>Reciprocal evaluation</strong>: It was pointed out that the grade
oriented academic system often leads to students disengaging with innovative
and meaningful learning practices. With the pressure of completing the
curriculum, the students’ instrumental relationship with their classroom
learning and the highly conservative structures of higher education that do not
offer enough space to experiment with the teaching methods, it often becomes
difficult to initiate innovative pedagogic practices. Learning from the
differently hierarchised digital spaces, it was suggested that one of the ways
by which this could be countered is by introducing reciprocal evaluation
patterns which might not directly be associated with the grades but would
recognise and appreciate the skills that students bring to their learning.</p>
<p>Inspired by the Badges contest at <a class="external-link" href="http://hastac.org/tag/badges">HASTAC</a>,
it was suggested that evaluation has to take into account, more than grades.
Different students bring different skills, experiences, personalities and
behaviours to bear upon the syllabus. They work individually and in clusters to
understand and analyse the curriculum. Recognising these skills and the roles
that they play in their learning environments is essential. Getting students to
offer different badges to each other as well as to the teachers involved, helps
them understand their own learning process and engages them in new ways of
learning.</p>
<p><strong>Role based learning: </strong>Within the Web 2.0 there is a peculiar
condition where individuals are recognised simultaneously as experts and
novices. They bring certain knowledges and experiences to the table which make
them credible sources of information and analysis in those areas. At the same
time, they are often beginner learners in certain other areas and they harness
the power of the web to learn. Such a distributed imagination of a student as
not equally proficient in all areas, but diversely equipped to deal with
different disciplines is missing from our understanding of the higher education
classroom.</p>
<p>We discussed the possibility of making the student responsible not
only for his/her own learning but also the learning of the peers in the
classroom. Making the student aware of what s/he is good at and where s/he is
lacking allows them to gain confidence and also realise that everybody has
differential strengths and aptitudes. Such a classroom might look different
because the students don’t have to be pitched in stressful competition with
each other but instead work collaboratively to learn, research and produce
knowledge in a nurturing and supportive learning environment.</p>
<p>These initial discussions look at the possibility of
innovative classroom teaching that can accommodate for the skills and
differences of the students in higher education in India. The conversations
opened up the idea that the classroom can be reshaped so that it becomes a more
inclusive space where the quality of students’ access to education can be
improved. It also ties in with the larger imagination of classrooms as spaces
where principles of social justice can be invoked so that students who are
disadvantaged in language, learning skills, socio-economic backgrounds, are not
just looked at as either ‘beyond help’ or ‘victims of a system’. Instead, it
encourages to look at the students as differential learners who need to be made
stakeholders in their own processes of learning and education.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/facultyworkshop'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/facultyworkshop</a>
</p>
No publishernishantHigher EducationAccess to KnowledgeDigital NativesFeaturedNew PedagogiesResearchers at WorkDigital Pluralism2015-05-08T12:36:29ZBlog EntryInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog EntryCIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that some of the proposals on future work could be worded better to reflect their true meaning. For instance, one of the proposal calls for control of the problem of "parallel import". However, "parallel importation" is actually allowed by both the TRIPS Agreement and by various other instruments such as the Berne Convention? Indeed, calling “parallel import” a problem is like calling "exceptions and limitations" a problem. This is a view that has been firmly rejected here at WIPO, especially post the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda. This, quite obviously, could not have been the intention of the proposal framers.</p>
<p>Further, the link between some of the proposals and the Development Agenda could be made clearer. It has been established that the Development Agenda is not just something for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to consider, but for all committees to make an integral part of their work.</p>
<p>I would also like to underscore the importance of evidence-based policy-making.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would like to mention that a report has already been commissioned by WIPO on intermediary liability, which was written by Prof. Lilian Edwards and was released in a side-event during SCCR 22, in June 2011.</p>
<p>If the ACE is going ahead with a study or an event, I would suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, who in his report to the UN Human Rights Council dealt in some depth with intermediary liability, be involved or invited.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsWIPO2011-12-01T15:30:38ZBlog EntryCIS Hosts Scanned Version of George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes
<b>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J), the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant is taking place on December 1, 2011. Amateur scanning of books often raises a lot of questions, around the issue of copyright. For this V/J13 is scanning George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes. The essay is in public domain in Russia, India and South Africa, but not in Europe and America due to copyright issues. CIS is hosting the scanned pages of the essay in public domain.</b>
<p>During the morning session DIY-made book scanner and OCR-software will be used to transform the scans into text files and in the afternoon session the digital material generated in the morning will be remixed.<br /><br />The main sessions can be followed online at the home page of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.vj13.constantvzw.org/site/">VJ13</a></p>
<h3>About VJ13</h3>
<p>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J) is the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant. Since 1997, Verbindingen/Jonctions combines high, low and no-tech strategies from utopian, contemporary, traditional and tribal cultures, free software, feminism and queer theories. V/J is an occasion to explore the space between thinking and doing, and the festival is always a mix of activities. It is an occasion to invite radio makers, artists, programmers, academics, Linux users, interface designers, urban explorers, performance artists, technicians, lawyers and others to experience each other’s practice, and to share their interests with a broad public of visitors.</p>
<p>V/J13 has been developed in collaboration with Le P’tit Ciné, Recyclart, Hacker Space Brussels (HSB), QO2, Renovas, Boutique de Quartier and Yves Poliart, Myriam Van Imschoot, Piet Zwart Institute: Networked Media.</p>
<p>Download the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes.zip" class="internal-link" title="Books vs Cigarettes">scanned version</a> (Zip files, 28091 kb)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-12-01T13:31:39ZBlog Entry