The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 111 to 124.
Statement of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-second session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from June 15 to June 24, 2011. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending the conference. CIS delivered its statement, on the Broadcast Treaty, and made it available in print form as well.</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to associate itself with the comprehensive statement made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We are one of the signatories of the joint statement, which EFF referred to, of the many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing an intellectual property rights based Broadcasting Treaty.</p>
<p>We believe that the protection that may be afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/tripsagreement.pdf">Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement</a>, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been under discussion for more than a decade without any progress is, as the WIPO Chair observed in the conclusion to the informal summary prepared after the 16th SCCR (SCCR/17/1/inf), an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no avail". Without prejudice to that position, we would like to make a few points on the content of the treaty as well.</p>
<p>There has been talk of ensuring a technology-neutral approach. While a technology-neutral approach is useful since technology keeps changing, we believe that that necessarily means the differences between different technologies should be recognized. The capital costs and investments of traditional broadcasters, which are—as has been highlighted in the many statements here today—the basis on which broadcasters' rights are demanded, are not in the least comparable with the capital costs and investments of webcasting.</p>
<p>These differences have not come out adequately in the various regional seminars that WIPO helped organize, since those were mostly with traditional broadcasters and did not cover webcasters.</p>
<p>"Communication to the public", while that is a technologically neutral formulation, is an element of copyright, and is not the same of broadcast rights, which is a related right.</p>
<p>Any departure from a signal-based approach would require the assent of the WIPO General Assembly, which has in 2007 specifically requested for signal-based approach for the treaty.</p>
<p>Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda, which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying content of the transmission.</p>
<p>In this regard, we strongly support the delegations of South Africa and India, in their strong pronunciation of public interests while looking at such a treaty. We further support the delegation of Canada, for strongly emphasizing the need to allow countries the flexibility to opt-out of the provisions of the treaty for certain forms of broadcasting.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingTechnological Protection Measures2011-08-04T04:41:12ZBlog EntryPirates, Plagiarisers, Publishers
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/plagiarism-in-indian-academia
<b>This article attempts to rescue not by denying the charges of plagiarism, but by charting an alternative trajectory of plagiarism so that each successive instance does not amplify our sense of embarrassment and crisis in the academy. The article by Prashant Iyengar was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, February 26, 2011, Vol XLVI No 9.</b>
<p>"Copying one book is plagiarism; copying several is research." Unknown <a href="#1">1</a></p>
<p>Someone must have slandered Indian academia, for, without having done anything new or different, allegations of plagiarism have suddenly been tumbling out of India’s ‘top’ universities in these past few years.</p>
<p>In October 2002, a group of physicists from Stanford University, including three Nobel laureates, addressed a letter to the (then) President Abdul Kalam complaining of plagiarism by the Vice Chancellor of Kumaon University.<a href="#2">2</a> In January 2006, a professor from IIM Bangalore was dismissed for plagiarism.<a href="#3">3</a> In February 2008, a professor from the Sri Venkateswara University in Tirupathi was accused of having plagiarized up to 70 papers between 2004 and 2007.<a href="#4">4</a> In October 2010, IIT Kharagpur was forced to set up a committee to investigate allegations of plagiarism by one of its professors and three doctoral candidates.<a href="#5">5</a></p>
<p>And so on. It seems Benjamin Franklin’s adage about originality being “the art of concealing your sources” thrives today in Indian academia. Something is rotten in the State of academic research. Evidently, we even know exactly what it is: Some years ago, the Association of Indian Universities invited students to a research contest. The pamphlet advertising the contest contained a remarkably prolix account of the causes of the general decline in academic research:</p>
<p>Of late, <b>research has become a subservient component in the university</b> functioning. It is <b>not considered a lucrative career option</b>. Apart from this, <b>resource constraints, lack of commitment, lack of proper encouragement</b>, etc., are the impediments that are affecting the quality of research in our institutions of higher education. Another important factor for the deterioration of the quality of research is the <b>absence of adequate training and other capacity building</b> endeavour in our system, which has <b>restricted students’ creativity only to rote memory</b>. <a href="#6">6</a> (emphasis mine)</p>
<p>Similarly, we are periodically reminded, as in this instance, by the chief of the Defence Research and Development Organisation that “India lacks quality academic organisations and research and development institutions that breed inventions in technology. This is the major reason behind India's failure in breaking new ground in inventions and innovations.”<a href="#7">7</a> Other news reports bemoan the fact that “Indian patent filings lag behind global average" with the total “number of filings by residents being just three per million people in its population, compared with the world average of 250”<a href="#8">8</a></p>
<p>Accounts such as these, which abound in the press and journals, typically trace a “decline” hypothesis according to which the quality of academic research in India, once rigorous and upright, has fallen precipitously in recent times. Poor quality of academic research is then portrayed as a function of the impoverishment of the academy itself. Concealed within this auto-critique is an envy of putatively ideal systems in other countries which exhibit values that are an inversion of those identified as ours: i.e. they privilege research, are well-resourced, file the statistically approved average number of patents, allow students’ creativity free rein, and do not restrict their creativity only to rote memory. Lurking underneath these criticisms is also the anxiety that the arrival of the internet has, far from invigorating indigenous research in India, facilitated plagiarism on a wider scale than previously imaginable. What do we make of all this self-slander?</p>
<p>In this essay I will attempt to rescue Indian academic research, not by denying the charges of plagiarism, but by charting an alternative trajectory of plagiarism so that each successive instance does not amplify our sense of embarrassment and crisis in the academy.</p>
<p>I begin by drawing on my own prior study on student research in law universities in India<a href="#9">9</a> to provide a rough account of how law students approach research. However inappropriate, I use some of my observations in the course of that study as a microcosmic model for how research is conducted by students across the country today.</p>
<p>Next, I will attempt to show how the charge of plagiarism only acquires its pungency after the installation of a particularly western ‘Romantic’ conception of creativity that is hinged on the ‘genius’ figure. My point here is not one of cultural difference – we may or may not have conflicting traditions of (literary) creativity in India - but of heterogeneity of possible standpoints from which creativity can be judged, which have been deprecated or forgotten since this modern conception took root. While this idea is itself not ‘original’, having been made by numerous authors on whose work I draw upon here<a href="#10">10</a> , I am interested here in how it can inform our reaction to quotidian reports of plagiarism in the contemporary. Specifically, I think our understanding of 'originality-as-genius’ is a relatively recent historical product, and is definitely not the 'natural' or universal parameter by which literature and arts have been judged. I would assert that contemporary practices on the Internet restore us to (or renew the salience of) some of these pre-modern practices of authorship where originality in its Cartesian sense may not necessarily be determinative of value.</p>
<p>I would however hasten to add that this does not lead us inexorably to the conclusion that our traditional understanding of plagiarism has to abandoned. In the case of academic writing, 'Romantic' standards of originality have been rigorously upheld and policed by the spectral might of the University. Here, the ritual demonstration of cartesian orginality is not only a condition of success, but a minimum qualification for survival and advancement in this domain. With the stakes being so high, the temptation to pass off others' works as one's own is great, in contrast to the risks of being caught. This does not mean that everyone resorts to it, only that there are structural factors in the academy that make practices of plagiarism more 'rational' than, perhaps, in other domains<a href="#11">11</a> .</p>
<p>To begin, then with my conclusions, I think that dulling the keenness of ‘cartesian originality’ in the University could be an important component in the serious task of educational reform. Equally, I aim, in this article to rehabilitate the term plagiarism so as to diminish the sense of embarrassment that seems to come naturally to us when we speak of Indian research.</p>
<h3>Student ‘research’ in Law Schools in India</h3>
<p>The content and observations in this section draw from a study that I had conducted in 2006 on student research in national law universities in India. During the study I had interviewed 40 students and eleven faculty members across three National Law Universities. <a href="#12">12</a> I will focus here on the themes from those surveys that directly address the issue of research and plagiarism.</p>
<p>By way of background, in a typical national law university following a semester model, a student must submit up to 5 research papers (of lengths varying from 20 to 50 pages) a semester – or ten papers a year. In the duration of her five year legal education, a student from a national law university in India would have submitted anywhere between 48 (NALSAR) to 70 (NLIU Jodhpur) research papers of varying lengths. Given an average class-size of 80, and 5 batches in every university, a guesstimate indicates an average output of about 4000 papers of varying quality from every national law university annually. The table below contains a rough back-of-envelope enumeration of the research output of five national law universities in India, drawn from respective university prospectuses and websites.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td><b>NALSAR</b></td>
<td><b>NLSIU</b></td>
<td><b>NLIU</b></td>
<td><b>NLU</b></td>
<td><b>GNLU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Intake</td>
<td><b>80</b></td>
<td><b>80</b></td>
<td><b>80</b></td>
<td><b>80</b></td>
<td><b>160</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Max Strength</td>
<td><b>400</b></td>
<td><b>400</b></td>
<td><b>400</b></td>
<td><b>400</b></td>
<td><b>800</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Academic Unit</td>
<td><b>Semester</b></td>
<td><b>Trisemester</b></td>
<td><b>Trisemester</b></td>
<td><b>Semester</b></td>
<td><b>Semester</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Law Courses</td>
<td><b>40</b></td>
<td><b>51</b></td>
<td><b>48</b></td>
<td><b>54</b></td>
<td><b>51</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Non-Law Courses</td>
<td><b>10</b></td>
<td><b>10</b></td>
<td><b>26</b></td>
<td><b>8</b></td>
<td><b>9</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Number of research papers<br />per student through the <br />duration of the 5 year course</td>
<td><b>18</b></td>
<td><b>50-60</b></td>
<td><b>65-74</b></td>
<td><b>55-62</b></td>
<td><b>55-60</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Max number of research <br />papers per semester / trisemester</td>
<td><b>1900</b></td>
<td><b>1400</b></td>
<td><b>2000</b></td>
<td><b>2200</b></td>
<td><b>4000</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Number of student<br />research papers per year<br />(approx)</td>
<td><b>3800</b></td>
<td><b>4200</b></td>
<td><b>6000</b></td>
<td><b>4400</b></td>
<td><b>8000</b></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>By any estimate, this volume of research is staggering and should ordinarily be a cause for pride. However law universities are also beset with the same anxieties of poor research ‘quality’ and plagiarism that characterize the broader academy. While my previous study contains a fuller discussion on the causes of poor legal research at these universities, I would like, here, to only reproduce some of my survey conclusions from that study that would feed the discussion for the later sections of this paper.</p>
<ul>
<li>From my surveys it appeared that both students and faculty shared a sense that the research burden on students in these universities was excessive and too onerous to facilitate high quality research.</li>
<li>Students respond to the high research load by budgeting their efforts – working more intensely on some research assignments while neglecting others. This accorded with the responses from faculty members who reported an extremely low number of high quality research papers turned in. Responses from faculty indicate that a high percentage of papers received fall under a median category between ‘high quality’ and ‘abjectly low quality’ – i.e. there are a large number of papers which, while offering a cogent account of the topic do not add any insight of their own.</li>
<li>Both students and faculty reported generally, the existence of a high degree of plagiarism (defined as the inclusion of extrinsic material without attributing sources) sourced both from amongst their peers as well as from extrinsic sources. Although most students (78%) claimed never to have directly copied from other students’ papers, many (67%) admitted to having shared their papers with other students either for ‘reference’, or more commonly, for adaptation/reuse in their assignments. The responses to whether they had any reservations against the practice were diverse with more students in favour of the practice of plagiarism (47%) than against (30%). Without admitting to participating it in themselves, 60% of respondents characterised the prevalence of ‘copy/paste’ plagiarism in research on their campus as ‘Rampant’ or ‘High’. Many reasons were forthcoming for the prevalence of this practice among which the more frequently stated included: ‘High work pressure’, ‘lack of time’ ‘lack of incentive to do high quality research’, ‘lack of emphasis by evaluators on high quality academic work’, ‘pointlessness of repeating identical research from scratch’. Other less common reasons offered were ‘emphasis on sheer volume to the neglect of quality of analysis’ and ‘disingenuousness of topics’ and ‘Laziness’.</li>
<li>Over half the students surveyed had never published their research in journals. This despite the fact that 75% of respondents reported that at least 1 of their research papers was either publishable immediately or with modifications. More than half the respondents reported upwards of three papers that they themselves regarded as ‘publishable’.</li>
<li>One of the common reasons that the faculty identified for the incidence of plagiarism was that students had begun to stereotype teachers who were unlikely to check or be able to check for plagiarism and would submit entirely plagiarised papers to them. Other reasons included the difficulty of checking the huge number of papers they received individually for plagiarism and also the fact that students had an unreasonably high workload coupled with the lack of enough incentive to do thorough research. <br /><br />“Intuition” and “checking the number of sources” was still the common mode of detecting plagiarism although some faculty made creative use of the internet – particularly Google.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Faculty was asked if a paper that appeared plagiarized to a high degree, but also indicated that the student had put in an intelligent compilation of materials, would be acceptable by them. The response to this was largely affirmative with some faculty members saying that most papers would correspond to that category and this standard was imperative for a majority of students to pass! Most faculty required that the source material at least be acknowledged.</li>
<li>With regard to their research sources, there was a clear bias in favour of online sources almost to the exclusion of other sources. One respondent even rated online sources as being “more important than libraries”, and even claimed that she always began her legal research on the internet.</li>
</ul>
<p>It is evident then from the foregoing account that the law universities are poor representatives of ‘original’ scholarship. The career of students through the law school seems to be marked by a blithe collaboration with faculty in which a Nelson’s eye is turned to their less-obvious plagiarisms. Although it is possible to adopt a high moralistic tone and condemn these practices, in the remainder of this paper I would like to marshal resources that would lend some dignity to them. In the section that follows, I will argue firstly, that there are rival conceptions of originality which privilege the recombination of existing information, rather than being fixated on ivory-towered ex nihilo originality.<br />Under this conception, even the pastiche works by lazy law students emerge as eminently ‘original’. Secondly, I argue that slavish imitation is never always only that, and have long been recognized as an integral aspect of the creative process itself.</p>
<h3>‘Originality’ is only a special effect of reception</h3>
<p>In his fascinating book Original Copy, Robert Macfarlane draws on George Steiner’s vocabulary to contrast two different narratives of literary creation – The first, creatio, espouses “a hallowed vision of creation as generation” which “connotes some brief, noumenal moment of afflatus or inspiration’ during which the author composes her work.</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>..the creative urge is dramatized as pulsing deep within the fastness of the individual self, and the solitary writer is seen to conjure ideas into the influence proofed chamber of his or her imagination. <a href="#13">13</a></div>
</blockquote>
<p>By contrast, the second conception of literary creativity, inventio, which is commonly found both in literary postmodernism and Augustan aesthetics, conceives of “creation as rearrangement” and “refuse[s] to believe in the possibility of creation out of nothing, or in the uninfluenced literary work”.<a href="#14">14</a> Instead this view “privileges the act of making out of extant material”. According to these “recombinative theories”, the creating mind is conceived</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>“as a lumber-room in which are stored innumerable verbal odds and ends. The supposedly ‘original’ writer in fact works with ‘inherited lexical, grammatical, and semantic counters, combining and recombining them into expressive executive sequences’. <a href="#15">15</a></div>
</blockquote>
<p>As an instance of this latter view, Macfarlane cites the example of Derrida who coined the term itérabilité to describe “the semantic drift which inevitably occurs between consecutive uses of the same text”. Derived from a combination of the Latin verb iterare (meaning ‘to repeat’) and the Sanskrit word itara (meaning ‘other’), the word “valuably emphasizes ‘the logic which links repetition to alterity’. For Derrida, the repetition of a text inescapably involves its alteration: you can never step twice in the same poem, paragraph, or word.”</p>
<p>I find this latter conception, especially Derrida’s concept of itérabilité to be a valuable tool with which to think through the practices of the law students I interviewed. While being derived from a plurality of (frequently unacknowledged sources), their papers were never mere ‘slavish’ repetitions, but always contained an element of alterity.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, the networked information age that we inhabit both facilitates and preempts the flourishing of ‘recombinative creativity’. On the one hand, the abundance of informational resources that the internet puts at a researcher’s disposal, as well as the ease of word-processing makes it easy to rapidly refashion materials into a pastiche of one’s own. On the other hand, the illusion of novelty that such work may produce is capable of being dispelled equally swiftly, and more efficiently than ever before through the use of special applications designed to detect plagiarism. If, as MacFarlane suggests, originality is not “an indwelling quality of writerly production, but instead a function of readerly perception, or more precisely readerly ignorance (the failure to discern a writer’s sources)”, then the emergence of the internet has nearly made this form of originality impossible, by making this reader ignorance extremely evanescent (lasting only until the reader’s next Google search). The ability of students to pass off plagiarised material as their own will hinge increasingly on their ability to alter it unrecognizably, at which point the output is no longer a mere slavish imitation, but something new altogether – ‘quality research’.</p>
<div>
<p>In an essay on pre-print culture<a href="#16">16</a> , Lawrence Liang demonstrates that the notion that prior to print technology, the task of writing was reduced to that of slavish copying by scribes is false. As Liang notes, the real story is slightly more complicated.</p>
</div>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>
<div>Acting as annotators, compilers, and correctors, medieval bookowners and scribes actively shaped the texts they read. For instance, they might choose to leave out some of the Canterbury Tales, or contribute one of their own. They might correct Chaucer’s versification every now and then. They might produce whole new drafts of Chaucer by combining one or more of his published versions with others.<a href="#17">17</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p>With the arrival of print technology, however, a fundamental transformation occurs in the way the activities of writing and reading. Liang quotes an extended passage from Rebecca Lynn’s study of reading and writing practices in medieval England<a href="#18">18</a> that captures this change:</p>
</div>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>
<div>
<div>the benefits readers derived from the press, in terms of better access to authorized texts, were countered by a profound loss of opportunity for inventive forms of reception. They were free to take with the texts they recopied. Manuscript culture encouraged readers to edit or adapt freely any text they wrote out, or to re-shape the texts they read with annotations that would take the same form as the scribe's initial work on the manuscript. <i>The assumption that texts are mutable and available for adaptation by anyone is the basis, not only for this quotidian functioning of the average reader, but also for the composition of the great canonical works of the period</i>.<a href="#19">19</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p>Is it possible, in the light of this insight about the creative element of copying in pre-print days, to revise our pathological accounts of contemporary plagiarism? <a href="#20">20</a> Can we view plagiarism not as an offence against the ‘author’ity of knowledge, but in a sense as a reversion to a more primordial tradition in which the availability of a text presumes and is premised upon its availability for adaptation. As described previously, responses from interviews with faculty indicates a grudging tolerance of plagiarism in student research.</p>
<p>This tolerance, stemming from an acknowledgement that even acts of compilation are not wholly without a creative element, seems to restore us to such an understanding of ‘creative’ reading akin to what has been described above.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Few years ago, a famous author of textbooks on Intellectual Property law in India was discovered to have plagiarised close to two hundred pages of his new book on the Right to Information. The pages had been lifted verbatim from the manuscript sent by a famous law professor to the same publisher. When the matter came to light, the first author pleaded ignorance. After an ugly out-of-court tussle between the professor and the publisher (who happen to be one of India’s more powerful legal-publishing houses), a compromise was reached wherein the professor’s book would be published with a note inserted stating that 200 of his pages had been included in the other ‘author’s’ book.</p>
<p>I conclude this essay with this piece of copyright ‘gossip’ in order to highlight a couple of ironies that it animates. The first is, of course, the delicious irony that a famous author, of IP books no less, would stoop to such lows. (Could academic writing in any discipline be above suspicion now that academic writing in IP, that guardian discipline of genius ‘originality’, has proven susceptible to plagiarism?) The second irony is that this person’s reputation as the ‘author’ of a book, and of a genre of books survives despite the fact that he may not have penned even a single word of his book – which prompts us to ponder what function the author truly serves here. Lastly, I find the fact curious that both books continue to be displayed – and sold - in various legal bookstores, frequently side-by- side. The ‘fact’ of the plagiarism seems not to have significantly impacted sales of either author’s tome.</p>
<p>Tempting as it may be, one must resist treating this example as either exceptional or paradigmatic. Publishers in India in many cases do lead authors by their nose, and this is particularly so in the case of text-book publishing. However, this does not mean that original – in the Cartesian sense - academic writing does not continue to be produced in India. I feel this instance points us to the limits of the argument I have made in the preceding section. As well as it may be to celebrate ‘recombinative’ accounts of creativity in students, wholesale plagiarism with impunity by big name authors backed by large publishing houses cannot be easy to endure. In our acceptance of a combinatorial ‘inventio’ theory of creativity, it would be unwise too hastily to jettison the more austere creatio theory. As Macfarlane points out, popular attitudes to originality and plagiarism have moved between the two narratives of originality in a dialectical fashion so that they can best be thought of as “enmeshed .., or existing in a kind of helical wrap: each requiring the other for its support, counter-definition, and continued existence. Neither ever obliterates the other.”<a href="#21">21</a></p>
<p>However they may have been produced, we regard our ‘works’ not merely as our property but also relationally through ethics of propriety. In other words, what we write is our “own” not in the way that our shoe is our own, but in the sense that our friends are our own. Plagiarism in this context most closely approaches its original Latin roots – plaga: to convert a freeman into a slave22. – as the unjust enslavement or capture of our work by someone else.<br />What role has the internet played in this crisis of plagiarism? Despite the inherent promiscuity of the medium, I think that the arrival of the internet has not actually changed our practices in relation to plagiarism. So the fact that I may blithely pirate movies and music on the internet does not mean, automatically, that I adopt 'piracy' as my research methodology for academic writing. Our choices remain as they were – to acknowledge or not, with the latter being increasingly more risky in an age when exposure is only a google search away.</p>
<p>Finally, how does all of this relate to the question I posed at the start viz: what do we make of this self-slander? I think it will not do to simply declare ourselves innocent of the charge of plagiarism. (As Josef K’s prison chaplain says, that is what the guilty usually do.) But equally we must be careful, to continue with a Kafkaesque metaphor, not to see the gallows being constructed in the distance and hang ourselves on the presumption they are being erected solely for us. Kafka alone, of course, does not supply good grist for policy decisions. A possible way forward would be to import the cinematic notion of plagiarism into academic writing: Not all that is unacknowledged is unoriginal (as my <br />example from student research at law universities shows), but this does not extend to a license to appropriate all as one's own (the example of the famous IP author who plagiarised 200 pages from a professor). The former is a function of the dominant, awkward alien aesthetic imposed by the University, which requires academic writing to be dully impersonal and abstract. Finding it too taxing, most students resort to a clumsy pastiche rather than, for instance, shifting to a more narrative style which they may be more comfortable with. The internet allows their pastiche to be more colorful than before.</p>
<p>The latter is plainly an ethical failing by someone who believes they can get away with impunity. The internet does not impact them in any way except that their 'crime' once discovered circulates endlessly on the internet (As this IP author discovered to his dismay).</p>
<p>In deciding what is to be done, however, I would advise our policy makers to make haste, only slowly.</p>
</div>
<h2>Notes</h2>
<div>
<p class="discreet"><a name="1">Lindey, A., 1952. <i>Plagiarism and originality</i>, Harper., New York, P.2</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="2">Chu, S. et al., 2002. Letter from the group of Professors of Physics of Stanford University to the President of India. Available at: </a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/publications/PDFfiles/india.pdf">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/publications/PDFfiles/india.pdf</a> [Accessed December 22, 2010].</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="3">Seethalakshmi, S., 2006. IIM-B prof held violating copyright. The Times of India. Available at: </a><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-01-05/bangalore/27803993_1_iim-b-p-g-apte-copyright-violation">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IIM-B-prof-held-violatingcopyright/ articleshow/1359149.cms?curpg=2</a> [Accessed December 21, 2010].</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="4">Tewari, M., 2008. Indian professor guilty of plagiarism. DNA India. Available at: </a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_indian-professor-guilty-of-plagiarism_1152417">http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_indian-professor-guilty-of-plagiarism_1152417</a> [Accessed December 21, 2010].</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="5">Singh, K., 2010. IIT-K sets up panel to probe plagiarism charges. Indian Express. Available at: </a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/iitk-sets-up-panel-to-probe-plagiarism-charges/695196/">http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/iitk-sets-up-panel-to-probe-plagiarism-charges/695196/</a> [Accessed December 21, 2010].</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="6">"Anveshan: Student Research Convention." Association of Indian Universities. Apr 2008. Research Division. 30 Apr 2008 <http://www.aiuweb.org/Research/research.asp>.</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="7">Josy Joseph , ‘India lacks R&D base, laments DRDO chief ‘, (2000), [Internet], Available from: <</a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/11josy1.htm">http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/11josy1.htm</a>> [Accessed 21 April 2008]</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="8">‘Indian patent filings lag behind global average’, [Internet], Available from: <</a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4075557/Indian-patent-filings-lag-behind-global-average">http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204702703</a>> [Accessed 21 April 2008]</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="9">Iyengar, P., 2008. Open Information Policy for Student Research in Law Universities. SSRN eLibrary. <br />Available at:</a><a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1555689"> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1555689</a> [Accessed December 24, 2010].</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="10">See for instance, Rose, M., 1993. <i>Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright</i>, Cambridge, Mass: <br />Harvard University Press. Woodmansee, M., 1984. The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal<br />Conditions of the Emergence of the 'Author'. <i>Eighteenth-Century Studies</i>, 17(4), 425-448.</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="11">For instance, the charge of plagiarism in the domain of cinema seems to have a significantly diluted charge. Bollywood has been accused frequently of aping Hollywood, although this does not stand in the way of it immense popularity and renown. Ramesh Sippy's Sholay is regarded as having been influenced by John Sturges' The Magnificent Seven, itself being similarly 'influenced' by Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai. On the modern definition of originality which requires us all to be 'perfectly uninfluenced', this qualifies as plagiarism. This definition however did not stand in the way of Sholay becoming an iconic film for Indian cinema.</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="12">Respectively The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS).Although this sample is not sufficiently representative to make statistically kosher extrapolations – indeed, I make no such claim - I think the responses I received affirmed certain interesting observable trends about student research, that would seem commonsensical to anyone who teaches in India. To that extent, I think this data yields some interesting starting points for the theme of the current paper.</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="13">Macfarlane, R., 2007. Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.2</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="14">Ibid, p.4</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="15">Ibid</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="16">Liang, L., 2009. A Brief History of the Internet from the 15th to the 18th Century. In N. Rajan, ed. <i>The Digitized Imagination</i>. Routledge India, pp. 15-36.</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="17">Ibid</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="18">Schoff, R.L., 2004. Freedom from the Press: Reading and Writing in Late Medieval England. Harvard University. Available at: </a><a class="external-link" href="http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/3516592">http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/3516592</a>. cited in Liang, L., 2009. A Brief History of the Internet from the 15th to the 18th Century. In N. Rajan, ed. The Digitized Imagination. Routledge India, pp. 15-36.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="19">Ibid</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="20">For instance the ‘epidemic of plagiarism’ language typified in this BBC article Precey, Matt. “Study shows 'plagiarism epidemic'.” BBC 17 Jan 2008. 13 May 2008 <</a><a class="external-link" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7194850.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7194850.stm</a>>.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="21">Supra n. 12, at p. 17</a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="22">See Voltaire, 1824. <i>A philosophical dictionary: from the French</i>, J. and H. L. Hunt. (Accessed from Google Books)</a></p>
</div>
<h2><span class="Apple-style-span">Also see these:</span></h2>
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15759.pdf">Economic and Political WEEKLY</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://originalfakes.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/epw-article-on-plagiarism/">Originalfakes</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1775582">Social Science Research Network</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/plagiarism-in-indian-academia'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/plagiarism-in-indian-academia</a>
</p>
No publisherprashantIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-05-29T05:55:27ZBlog EntryCopy, Left And Right
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/copy-left-and-right
<b>Copyright laws are becoming more rigid and anti-sharing. But copyleft has a solution.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://business.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?270583">The article by Shruti Yadav was published in Outlook Business on February 19, 2011</a>. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in this article.</p>
<p>Underlying some of the most ancient Indian literature is a unique concept—<em>sruti</em>, or divine revelation. Much of this Vedic literature is supposed to have been revealed by the Gods to sages, who then passed it on orally from generation to generation till the formation of the written word, when it was codified. By claiming this divine connection, the authors didn’t just immortalise themselves and their works, they also renounced ownership of it. They presented themselves as humble storytellers, who needed the audience to tell the story again and again to keep it alive, just like the Gods needed them to tell it for the first time.</p>
<p>The transfer of knowledge freely wasn’t limited to India. In the ancient systems of medicine, schools of art, mythology and folklore, there is striking and frequent cross-referentiality across civilisations. Of course, knowledge was at a premium even in these societies, but no one claimed ownership of it.</p>
<p>Then, as increasing democratisation of knowledge threatened established political, religious and commercial interests, the western world awoke to the necessity of copyright, which evolved as a protection for monopolies over technology, research and works of art, and now is strangling even those who produce the work in the first place. So, after transferring the copyrights to their work, people often find that their lives are dictated to by studios, publishers and software companies, through complex and rigorous laws that concentrate on profiteering to the exclusion of everything else, including the freedoms of the author and the user.</p>
<p>It is in the assertion of the freedom, of both the source of the work, and its users, that copyleft is becoming the voice of a growing number of people. The copyleft movement can be said to have been started by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), who developed the GNU operating system that, with the incorporation of the Linux kernel made free by its proprietor Linus Torvalds, became Gnu/Linux. His General Public Licence (GPL) is the byword in protecting user freedom.</p>
<p>So, what is copyleft? It is a form of copyright, but unlike copyright that reserves all rights related to a work, copyleft allows users to copy, modify and distribute the work, with the rider that the resulting copies come with the same freedom. Creative Commons, the non-profit global organisation that helps people copyleft their work, calls this ShareAlike.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Sharing is a contentious issue today. Because of digital technology,
which allows us to copy and share virtually free of cost, knowledge and
art are easily and cheaply accessible. Unfortunately, this has resulted
in a stricter regime that routinely criminalises schoolchildren for
downloading the latest songs from the Internet. If you buy a car, and
lend it your friend, can the car company claim you are a criminal? But
it is the technicality of making a copy for the purpose of sharing that
makes a vice out of a natural human impulse. As Karsten Gerloff,
President, FSF Europe, puts it, “When laws clash with common sense, on
such an enormous, global scale, we don’t need to change common sense. We
need to change the laws.” A purist when it comes to freedom, Stallman
echoes this sentiment in stronger words, “Laws against sharing are
attacks on society. "Anyone who tries to stop people from sharing has
declared himself the enemy of us all.”</td>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/richard.jpg/image_preview" alt="Richard Stallman" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Richard Stallman" /><br />
<p>Richard Stallman, Founder and President, Free Software Foundation</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Copyright Protects Work... Or Does It?</h3>
<p>Two arguments often misused to justify the strict, all-rights-reserved policy of copyright are that it prevents plagiarism and incentivises innovation and creativity. The argument of plagiarism can easily be dismissed. As Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre For Internet And Society points out, “No licence can take away the right of a person to be identified with his or her work. The moral rights of a person are non-transferable.” The second argument is more insidious.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Karsten.jpg/image_preview" alt="Karsten Gerloff" class="image-inline image-inline" title="Karsten Gerloff" /><br /></td>
<td>When Nina Paley released her critically acclaimed animation film, Sita
Sings The Blues, she chose a Creative Commons By-SA licence. This means
anybody could copy, modify and distribute the work under the same
licence. Paley says, “I wanted my film to reach the widest
audience...ShareAlike would prevent the work from being ever locked up.
It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the
Public Domain via privatised derivatives.” So copyright doesn’t really
protect the work; often people who decide its destiny have not even made
it in the first place. In fact, Gerloff points out, “Copyright makes it
possible for individuals to appropriate traditional stories and
mythical characters as Disney has done with the folk tales collected by
the Brothers Grimm and others. Anyone who tries to return those
characters to the popular imagination is immediately torn apart by a
screaming horde of Disney lawyers.” So, is it an incentive for the
artist, the software-maker, or the scientist?</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Of course, there is a financial aspect of the question. Most people who use copyleft licences do not become millionaires overnight. But they do make money. Within a year of her film’s release, Paley made $132,000, recovering about half the cost of production. The money came from donations, awards, screenings, merchandising and sharing of revenue by people who made derivative works. Best of all, Paley could choose her revenue models, without restricting her audience. Compare this with lyricist Javed Akhtar being banned by the Film Federation of India for lobbying in Parliament for better royalty for lyricists and composers—the new law proposes to improve their lot by giving them 12.5% each, while 75% still goes to the producers.</p>
<h3>How Copyleft Helps </h3>
<p>On the economic side of the argument for copyleft is also the fact that making a work available for others to modify leads to improved quality and saves costs of duplication of work. Android is an example of sharing driving innovation, though, according to Stallman, it compromises the spirit of free software, as many phones with Android systems don’t let users install modified versions of the software but let software companies do so. Finally, free market logic should make absolute copyright redundant. As Paley points out, “Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Monopolies are inherently at odds with competition and free trade."</p>
<p>While knowledge-based economies are still reluctant to give up their old habits, legislators in countries like India have to make a choice. Shishir K Jha, Project Leader, Creative Commons India, says, “We need to take a view: do we want to make information scarce or easily available? Because this has implications in many areas—education, health, R&D."</p>
<div class="pullquote">Artists who copyleft their work do make money; they distribute their work without restricting its audience.</div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the <em>Mahabharata</em>, the tribal boy Eklavya wants to learn archery from Dronacharya—the teacher of the Pandavas and Kauravas—who has vowed to teach only the royal princes. Determined, Eklavya makes a clay statue of his revered teacher and learns on his own, soon becoming the best archer in the kingdom, even better than Arjun, Dronacharya’s favourite student. So what does the teacher do when he finds out? As <em>guru-dakshina</em>, (the obligatory payment for teaching), he asks for Eklavya’s right thumb, thus cutting him off (literally) from his self-taught skill.</p>
<p>Those seeking to establish a knowledge monopoly often operate through a set of cruel and unfair laws. Should we stop sharing?</p>
<h2>Licences for Freedom</h2>
<p>Bridging the gap between Copyright and Public Domain.</p>
<p><strong>Art Libre</strong>: Allows users to copy, modify and incorporate a creative work, including for commercial use, as long as subsequent versions are licenced under the same or a compatible licence. The user must specify if the original is modified and credit the original artist. A creative work may be physical or digital—text, sound, video—anything over which the maker has a copyright.</p>
<p><strong>GNU/ GPL</strong>: Allows users to copy, modify and incorporate the work, including for commercial purposes. The licence is passed on automatically with subsequent versions. A person can’t compromise user freedom by using a GPL software as part of a version that is licenced under conditions (or is subject to legislations) that infringe on the rights granted by the GPL licence. In case of a clash, the use of the GPL software is simply invalid.</p>
<p><strong>Creative Commons (CC) has several licences, which are essentially combinations of a few standard criteria</strong>:</p>
<ul><li> <strong>Attribution</strong>: Maker’s name.</li><li><strong>Share-alike</strong>: The stipulation that copies, modifications or derivatives be passed on under the same conditions.</li><li><strong>Derivatives</strong>: The licencee can chose whether or not to allow derivatives of his work.</li><li><strong>Comercial use</strong>: The licencee can choose whether or not to allow copies, derivatives and subsequent versions to be used for commercial use.</li></ul>
<p><strong>As a result, we have six types of licences:</strong></p>
<ul><li>CC BY or Attribution</li><li>CC BY-SA or Attribution-ShareAlike</li><li>CC BY-ND or Attribution-NoDerivatives</li><li>CC BY-NC or Attribution-NonCommercial</li><li>CC BY-NC-SA or Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike</li><li>CC BY-NC-ND or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives</li></ul>
<p><strong>Paley warns</strong>: Use a truly Free licence, such as ShareAlike or ArtLibre. NEVER use a “non-commercial” or “no-derivatives” licence. Those are not copyleft and are incompatible with Free Culture.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/copy-left-and-right'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/copy-left-and-right</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyright2012-05-23T06:37:53ZNews ItemThomas Abraham's Rebuttal on Parallel Importation
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-rebuttal
<b>We engaged in an e-mail conversation with Thomas Abraham, the managing director of Hachette India, on the issue of parallel importation of books into India. We thought it would be in the public interest to publish a substantive part of that conversation. In this post he points at great length how our arguments are faulty. While we still believe that he doesn't succeed, we hope this will clarify matters a bit.</b>
<h2>Nature of disagreement</h2>
<p>There is essentially fundamental disagreement on principle and definition-and I guess there will always be if you knock actual knowledge and see things as abstract philosophical (and legal) points. Why I think detailed knowledge is necessary is precisely illustrated at the logic (or lack thereof actually) employed by the Ministry. And then there is to me the fundamental problem of disregarding the author's wishes (for no greater good).</p>
<h2>Second hand books and libraries</h2>
<p>The comparison is not the same. Both (second-hand and libraries) have had a first sale where the copyright holder has got his/her basic right-the designated royalty. (I have explained earlier how export royalties and remainder royalties are much lower and results in losses to the author.) So here we come back to the basic philosophy-who has greater right on deciding on creative works? The creator or the government? A just answer would be the creator provided commercial dissemination fulfilled society's needs-which in India's case would be availability and right pricing keeping in mind socio-economic needs. Both are happening through local publishing and pricing of imports. But parallel imports would take away that right an author has of deriving a rightful income as per existing norms in all mature markets (including India so far). We are heading towards being a mature market and this has come about only because we are in the self-perpetuating framework of publishing, writing, and cultural development.</p>
<p>So the argument is that second hand books and libraries foster reading without depriving the author of rightful royalty or ruining the market.</p>
<p>Parallel importation does both. There is every reason to know that this will happen-that's exactly the substantiation we are offering. And the advocates of parallel importation have none to offer-pricing (where is it high, and by how much should it come down?), what is not freely available and at special prices? So for what reason do we want the existing law-also made by lawmakers-to change the stated remit of exhaustion from national to international.</p>
<p>No book publisher objects to libraries or even second hand books. But they are objecting to parallel importation. So leave it to them to decide. It is a tad patronizing to tell us what will help us, without having a shred of actual knowledge.</p>
<h2>Helping libraries and disabled</h2>
<p>This is completely false. No library needs to import from Amazon. And if it is a public library then they are wasting taxpayer money. Almost any book in the world they will still get at a special price through Indian publishers or distributors. There are societies for the disabled to whom publishers give rights at almost no cost. The UK has a law that a copy must be made available at near cost for disabled. By all means have such a law here. Why try and use parallel importation as an excuse for this?</p>
<h2>Flexibility in the law</h2>
<p>To your point: "Even if prices don't fall, it is good to have the flexibility for libraries to import four copies of a book that students need and isn't being made available in India. That flexibility is crucial, for availability, and just on principle, and not just for the sake of prices". By all means pass the law that gives the libraries the right to import 5 copies of any book they want. Publishers won't gripe at that. Libraries would still get it cheaper here than Amazon but that's the libraries' call.</p>
<h2>Law should promote fairness and equity, not perpetuate a particular business model</h2>
<p>No disagreement here. But the contention is that it will result in exactly the opposite. Sure, so let the lawmakers demonstrate they have done due diligence and outline evidence for their assumptions and how it will promote fairness and equity. What is unfair right now and what is not equitable? And how this law will address that. Why do other markets have it, and why should we not? On no count is there any detailing-just three false assumptions-availability, pricing and current editions.</p>
<p>Equally one can't have the law being made the proverbial ass because the lawmakers won't do their homework.</p>
<h2>Export and remainder royalties are lower</h2>
<p>I explained export vs domestic royalties in my first rebuttal. Not just remainders. Remainders are near zero royalties. Export surplus even pre-remainders are low royalty-against the author's wishes. And parallel importation will result in further loss of royalties from loss of sales of the hitherto legitimate edition.</p>
<h2>Why anti-dumping laws will not be practical</h2>
<p>Firstly there will be 40,000-plus titles to track, and the damage would have been done by the time you invoke the law. And assuming we want to invoke anti-dumping law, what parameters will be fixed? what discount are you going to fix? What quantity? I'll explain why this will never work. There are no real averages to draw lines and say this much and no more for either discount or price or quantity. To understand why we need to understand cost to price structures. Indian publishing (both publishing and imports) is low margin. Our books are priced to market; that means from cost our mark up is 2.5 times for imports and about 3-4 on average for local publishing-to enable the prices you see. Abroad it is 8-10 times from cost. To enable low pricing in India, we already have overseas terms that exceed 70% discounts, going into 'net pricing' for the ones that we pick to push big. Once the market is opened up, you will have two things-(a) targeted remainders as against the minor trickle now and (b) surplus clearance or even targeted sale to undercut the existing lawful edition. And I repeat the point that these remainders and 'targeted exports' can still end up undercutting the local edition. Not significantly enough to cause a change in pricing pattern (no benefit to consumer), but enough to undermine existing industry structures.</p>
<p>And yes, parallel importation (the current trickle) does see enforcement the logical way (by which I mean that the intensity of the problem merits the level of redressal). So far (believe me, each of us keeps tabs) we have 'unaware imports' and 'deliberate imports'. It is an irritant but is gradually reducing as the market matures. And the unaware ones are easily remedied by a simple letter asking for infringing stock to be withdrawn. In fact 8 out of 10 cases this simple letter works. For the deliberate ones, as I said earlier, it's just one or two where the impact is not worth the cost. Our margins do not allow us to hire expensive lawyers. But the moment it touches key brands or high revenue, legal action is taken.</p>
<h2>Market expansion</h2>
<p>Again the inherent assumption that this is some 'fat cat' lobbying protest. For once the lawmakers need to apply themselves-why is everybody from Penguin & Hachette (biggest) to Zubaan and Yatra (amongst smallest) all opposing it? Similarly from Crossword (large chain) to 'The Bookshop' in Jor Bagh (small independent), nobody wants this. Why? Surely that must speak for something? The only ones it will benefit are the remainder stalls you see (of which there must be about 25-30 all over the country). But over time every bookshop will be forced to keep this kind of stocking eroding current shelf space (they will have no choice). This is not market expansion.</p>
<h2>Pricing drop</h2>
<p>The other thing being ignored is that it's not just short term spoiler pricing. When one thinks in purely theoretical terms and says "open up, prices will drop", one is also not factoring in that the composition of what is stocked will changed. It's no longer <em>status quo</em> at reduced prices. That's the key to a mature market, that what the market needs is available-from bestsellers to literary works to philosophical works-balancing commercial and cultural needs and at prices the market can afford. So sure we can sit back and say we don't care if the history and philosophy shelves are eroded, if local publishing shrinks, let market forces prevail and let there be just foreign mass market novels and old editions (which will flow in by the thousand). But I'd like to hear the government say that.</p>
<h2>Not just about copyrighted books but about all copyrighted materials</h2>
<p>Yes, and we're not commenting about the others (other materials, i.e.) because we do not know enough. But we cannot have one size fits all if there are legitimate grounds to think about otherwise. Why is there a redressal of authors' needs in the music and film industry and a total disregard of books? Why were there panels created to discuss and thresh the whole thing through for films, and no detailed consultation at all for the books industry?</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-rebuttal'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-rebuttal</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-04T04:47:12ZBlog EntryIndian Law and "Parallel Exports"
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports
<b>Recently, a lawyer for the publishing industry made the claim that allowing for parallel importation would legally allow for the exports of low-priced edition. Here we present a legal rebuttal of that claim.</b>
<p>Recently, on publisher/editor/writer Divya Dubey's blog, Saikrishna Rajagopal, a highly respected copyright lawyer and founding partner of Saikrishna & Associates, <a class="external-link" href="http://dearddsez.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-abrahams-rebuttal-to-why.html">claimed that</a> we had misconstrued the law with regard to export of books from India, and that allowing for parallel importation would harm that.</p>
<p>Mr Rajagopal writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fundamental legal infirmity that I find in Mr. Prakash’s argument are twofold:<br />1. That current Indian Law allows export of low priced editions;<br />2. That the proposed proviso would not include within its scope 'exports'.</p>
<p>1. As regards the argument that current Indian Law allows export of low priced editions, the two John Wiley cases of the Delhi High Court of May 2010, make it abundantly clear that current Indian Copyright Law precludes export of low priced editions. Pertinently, an appeal was preferred in one of the Wiley cases and was dismissed. These judgments are therefore final now and therefore authoritatively, interpret Indian Copyright Law as it stands today.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I was wrong regarding the question of export of low-priced editions. There are are two Delhi High Court judgments which came out in May 2010 on export of books, holding that export of Low-Priced Editions meant for India to countries outside is unlawful (<em>John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors v. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain & Ors</em> and <em>John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors v. International Book Store & Anr</em>). However, in the first judgment Justice Manmohan Singh clearly held that it would be unlawful to export without permission of the rights owner regardless of whether we followed the doctrine of national exhaustion (disallowed parallel importation) or the doctrine of international exhaustion (allowed parallel importation), and the "the question of exhaustion of rights of owner in copyright does not arise at all".[1] Thus Mr. Rajagopals's fears are, thankfully, unfounded.</p>
<p>Mr. Rajagopal continues:</p>
<blockquote>2. As regards Pranesh’s argument that the proposed amendment does not cover ‘exports’, this argument is completely specious. In order to determine at what stage a copyright owner loses its right to control further sale and distribution of a copyrighted product, the statute itself needs to be looked into to determine what standard of exhaustion of rights has been contemplated. If the proposed proviso becomes law, it would be a clear indicator to a Court that Indian Copyright Law follows international exhaustion, namely, that once a product is legitimately sold anywhere in the world market, the copyright owner loses/exhausts the right to control further distribution and sale, including export and import. It is because the copyright owner exhausts rights globally that the proposed amendment is allowing for genuine copies of books sold in the international market, to be legally imported into India. This being the case, there is almost unanimity amongst IP Lawyers that export of low priced editions would also be considered legal, in view of the proposed amendment. This is not just our Indian view, but also the view of other international IP experts who have had an opportunity to look at the implications of this proviso.<br /></blockquote>
<p>The copyright owner, under a proper appreciation of the Indian law,
never has the right to control "further sale and distribution" (as per s.14(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act), contrary to Mr. Rajagopal's assertion. Once a
copy is in circulation (e.g., is sold), the copyright owner no longer has the exclusive
right to put that copy into circulation, nor to control its further sale /
distribution in any manner. This is the limitation on the owner's right that allows libraries exist. This is how second-hand book shops exist. If this limitation of the copyright owner's right did not exist, libraries and second-hand book shops would need to take permissions from the owner for each copy of each book that they lend or sell.</p>
<p>Imports and exports are two distinct things. India's following of the principle of "international exhaustion" means that the right to first sale is exhausted <em>in India</em>, when the work is legally published anywhere <em>internationally</em> (i.e., regardless of where that copyrighted work is legally published). The principle of international exhaustion doesn't not exhaust the right of first sale <em>internationally</em>—the word "international" is used to indicate where the <em>publication</em> has to take place for exhaustion to occur, and not where the <em>exhaustion</em> takes place. After all, Indian law on a matter cannot determine whether a book can or cannot be sold anywhere else in the world (which is precisely what it would do if it is to hold that rights are exhausted internationally by virtue of a book being printed in India).</p>
<p>Having done research on this point for the past week, I have not been able to come up with any legal articles or cases to directly oppose Mr. Rajagopal's claim that the legality of book exports from a country can depend on whether it follows national or international exhaustion. It is such a novel claim that no one has made it so far, and so no one has thought to oppose it. I know of no other IP lawyers in India or internationally who agree with
Mr. Rajagopal's claim that allowing for parallel importation in India will have
an impact on the exports of low-priced editions from India.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Most pertinently, when the Wiley judgments which related to export of low priced editions, were being pronounced in Court, the Hon’ble Judge casually remarked that the law laid down in cases may soon become redundant if the proposed legislation comes into force.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As noted above, the judge specifically stated in the written judgment itself that as per the court's reasoning, the question of whether the export of low-priced editions is legal is not related to the question of exhaustion of rights of the owner: "<em>. . . as the express provision for international
exhaustion is absent in our Indian law, it would be appropriate to
confine the applicability of the same to regional exhaustion. Be that as
it may, in the present case,</em> <em>the circumstances do not even otherwise
warrant this discussion </em>. . . <em>the question of exhaustion of
rights of owner in the copyright does not arise at all</em>". </p>
<p>To get a little bit more technical, Justice Singh rules that there is a difference between first sale (exhaustion) vis-a-vis the owner and first sale vis-a-vis the licensee. He states that only rights of the licensee have been exhausted, and that the rights of the owner being exhausted do not even arise. But he is quite clear that this difference would apply regardless of whether we follow international exhaustion or national exhaustion.</p>
<strong>Update (2011-02-15): </strong>For the tabularly inclined, here's a summary of what it means for a country to follow "national exhaustion" or "international exhaustion":
<div align="center"> </div>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center"><br /></td>
<td align="center">What "Exhaustion" Means<br /></td>
<td align="center"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">Where copyrighted work is first circulated<br /></th>
<th align="center">Where right of circulation is exhausted <br /></th>
<th align="center">What this is termed<br /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center">In any country<br /></td>
<td align="center">In all countries<br /></td>
<td align="center">[- Not possible.<br /><br />- Law in one country<br />can't dictate law in another.<br /><br />- Exhaustion of right of circulation<br />
"in all countries" can only be <br />
declared so through an <br />
international treaty<br />
(e.g., the way TRIPS makes a book<br />copyrighted in all countries if <br />it is copyrighted in any country)<br /><br />- Art. 6 of TRIPS doesn't allow for this interpretation.]<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><strong> In any country<br /></strong></td>
<td align="center"><strong>Domestic territory<br />
</strong></td>
<td align="center"><strong>International exhaustion<br />
</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"> Domestic territory<br /></td>
<td align="center">In all countries<br /></td>
<td align="center">[- Not possible.<br />
<br />- Law in one country <br />can't affect law in another.<br /><br />- Exhaustion of right of circulation<br />
"in all countries" can only be <br />declared so through an <br />international treaty<br />(e.g., the way TRIPS makes a book<br />
copyrighted in all countries if <br />it is copyrighted in any country)<br /><br />- Art. 6 of TRIPS doesn't allow for this interpretation.]<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><strong> Domestic territory<br />
</strong></td>
<td align="center"><strong>Domestic territory<br />
</strong></td>
<td align="center"><strong>National exhaustion<br />
</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Thus it is seen that the "national" or "international" exhaustion only determines the question of where the book has to be first circulated for exhaustion to happen. It can never change <em>where</em> the right of first circulation is exhausted (which in either case can only happen at a territorial level). </p>
<p>The implication of the right of circulation being exhausted world-wide is that no country can by law prevent parallel importation. The TRIPS Agreement, via Article 6, decided to give each country the right to choose to allow or disallow parallel importation. This was despite a great effort by developing countries to get international exhaustion codified as the worldwide norm.</p>
<p>To make this even more clear, I propose the following thought experiment.<br /><br /><strong>X</strong> - national of <strong>New Zealand</strong>, which follows international exhaustion.<br /><strong>Country 1</strong> - a country that follows national exhaustion / doesn't allow parallel imports<br /><strong>Country 2</strong> - a country that follows national exhaustion / doesn't allow parallel imports<br /><strong>Country 3</strong> - a country that follows international exhaustion / allows for parallel imports<br /><br /></p>
<ul><li>Example 1: If <strong>X</strong> buys a book from <strong>Country 1</strong> and sells that book in <strong>Country 2</strong>, he is in violation of <strong>Country 2</strong>'s laws, regardless of the laws in <strong>New Zealand</strong> and <strong>Country 1</strong>.</li><li>Example 2: If <strong>X</strong> buys a book from <strong>Country 1</strong> and sells that book in <strong>Country 3</strong>, he is <em>not</em> in violation of the law (either in <strong>New Zealand</strong> or in <strong>Country 3</strong>).</li><li>Example 3: If <strong>X</strong> buys a book in <strong>New Zealand</strong> and sells that book in <strong>Country 2</strong>, he is in violation of <strong>Country 2</strong>'s laws, regardless of the laws in <strong>New Zealand</strong>.</li><li>Example 4: If <strong>X</strong> buys a book in <strong>New Zealand</strong> and sells that book in <strong>Country 3</strong>, he is <em>not</em> in violation of the law (either in <strong>New Zealand</strong> or in <strong>Country 3</strong>).</li></ul>
<p><br />If one takes "international exhaustion" to mean that the right is exhausted in <em>every country</em>, then <strong>Example 3</strong>
would be wrong. But that would be absurd, since we know from experience
that it is correct: Buying a book in New Zealand and selling it in the
United Kingdom (which follows national/regional exhaustion) is unlawful. So obviously "international exhaustion" doesn't mean that.</p>
<p>Similarly, if one takes "national exhaustion" to mean that after sale a book cannot be exported, that
would imply that <strong>Example 2</strong> is faulty. But we know from
experience that this is not so: Buying a book in the United Kingdom and selling it in New Zealand is lawful. So obviously "national exhaustion" doesn't mean that.</p>
<p>Thus, it is only the act of import that is ever affected by the question of national vs. international exhaustion, and never exports.</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p> [1]: Justice Manmohan Singh writes: "As per my opinion, as the express provision for international
exhaustion is absent in our Indian law, it would be appropriate to
confine the applicability of the same to regional exhaustion. Be that as
it may, in the present case, the circumstances do not even otherwise
warrant this discussion as the rights if at all are exhausted are to the
extent to which they are available with the licensees as the books are
purchased from the exclusive licensees who have limited rights and not
from the owner. In these circumstances, the question of exhaustion of
rights of owner in the copyright does not arise at all." (Para 104).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-04T04:47:07ZBlog EntryWhy Parallel Importation of Books Should Be Allowed
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books
<b>There has been much controversy lately with some publishers trying to stop the government from amending s.2(m) of the Indian Copyright Act, clarifying that a parallel import will not be seen as an "infringing copy". This blog post argues that the government should, keeping in mind the larger picture, still go ahead and legalise parallel imports.</b>
<p>[Updated Wednesday, February 2, 2011, to respond to <a class="external-link" href="http://dearddsez.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-abrahams-rebuttal-to-why.html">Thomas Abraham's extensive and thoughtful rebuttal</a> of the earlier version this post.]</p>
<p>First off, here is the controversial clause, with the proposed amendment (the insertion of a "proviso", in legalese) being emphasised in bold font-face:</p>
<h2>The amendment<br /></h2>
<blockquote>
<p>2(m) "infringing copy" means,—</p>
<p> (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;</p>
<p> (ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;</p>
<p> (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;</p>
<p> (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;</p>
<p><strong>Provided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some claim that this amendment to s.2(m) ("provided that... copy") has the potential to
destroy the publishing industry. The most lucid explanation of this was in a recent op-ed by Thomas Abraham
in the Hindustan Times, very ominously titled <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/652735.aspx">The Death of Books</a>. However it seems to us that the publishing
industry—especially foreign publishers with distributorships in India—don't want to open
themselves up to competition in the distribution market, and are opposing this most commendable move.</p>
<h2>What is parallel importation?<br /></h2>
<p>Before getting into explanations of why allowing for parallel importation is good, and how the arguments otherwise fall short, we should examine what parallel importation is. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Parallel import, insofar as copyright is concerned, involves an “original” copyright product (i.e. produced by or with the permission of the copyright owner in the manufacturing country) placed on the market of one country, which is subsequently imported into a second country without the permission of the copyright owner in the second country. For instance, the copyright owner of a book produced in India places the book on the market in India. A trader buys 100 copies of the book from India and imports them to China without the permission of the copyright owner of the book in China. This act of the trader bringing the books into China is called parallel import, the legality of which depends on the copyright law of the importing country (namely China in this example)." (Consumers International, <em>Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws</em> 23 (2006).)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some fear-mongers try to equate parallel importation with
'anarchy' in markets, and some confusedly claim that this amendment would allow <em>infringing</em> copies of books
would be permitted. That is simply not true. For parallel importation to be said to happen, the sale must itself be legal. If it is an an illegally sold copy (a pirated copy of a book, for instance) that is imported, then it will count as a black market import—not as a parallel import. Allowing for parallel imports will only dismantle
monopoly rights over importation, and the amendment makes
that amply clear.</p>
<h2>Harms on existing books of not allowing parallel importation</h2>
<p>Libraries/second-hand bookshops/consumers have no way of knowing if a book was originally imported legally or not, since there is no easy way of telling a parallel-ly imported copy apart from a exclusively imported copy. If one of them, even unknowingly buys/sells a foreign edition about which they am not sure and it turns out it was not legally imported (and there are literally thousands of such books, and I personally own at least a couple dozen foreign editions bought from various second-hand bookshops) then they are committing copyright infringement.</p>
<p>This precisely was argued by the library associations and others in <em>amici</em> briefs to the US Supreme Court in the <em>Costco v. Omega</em> case. For instance, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu3LibraryAssns.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the the American Library Association, the Association of College
and Research Libaries, and the Association of Research Libraries in
Support of Petitioner</a> argues that:</p>
<blockquote>By restricting the application of [the first sale doctrine] to copies manufactured in the United States, the Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens the ability of libraries to continue to lend materials in their collections. Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit’s narrowing of [the first sale doctrine] only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a “lending license” whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States. <br /></blockquote>
<p>and, the <a title="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1423_PetitionerAmCu6NonProfitOrgs.pdf" rel="nofollow">brief
for the Public Knowledge, American Association of Law Libraries,
American Free Trade Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association in
Support of Petitioner</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>The uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding [against parallel importation] will harm used bookstores, libraries, yard sales, out-of-print book markets, movie and video game rental markets, and innumerable other secondary markets. Owners of copyright works or goods containing copyrighted elements manufactured abroad will be unable to dispose of these products without authorization at the risk of liability under copyright law’s extensive damages provisions. Furthermore, the chilling effects of the Ninth Circuit’s holding will extend beyond works manufactured abroad. Owners of copies of works will be unable to determine whether they are protected by [the first sale doctrine], as they will not always know where their goods were manufactured. Copyright holders will have little incentive to make clear the location of manufacturing of their copyrighted works,3 as greater uncertainty means a greater ability to sell the right to distribute the goods within the United States. Secondary market sellers who cannot afford to purchase this right will be unable to do business unless they are prepared to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation with an uncertain result. A wide variety of important secondary markets in copyrighted works and goods with copyrighted elements will suffer without the protection of the first sale doctrine.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Benefits of parallel importation</h2>
<h3>Dismantling distribution monopoly rights<br /></h3>
<p>The benefits that will accrue from allowing for parallel importations
are huge. Currently a large percentage of educational books in India
are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in
importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition,
the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an
authorization to import books—the licence raj that currently exists
would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit. This is
especially important for students and for libraries because even when
low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.</p>
<p>Allowing people to import goods without permissions (with appropriate duties) is taken for granted in all other areas, so why not copyrighted works? After all, it is not the act of publication that gets affected, but the right of exclusive distribution. And if that goes away after first sale internationally, that's not a bad thing at all.</p>
<p>Generally, there are two main benefits of allowing for parallel importation: faster introduction of the latest international releases into the domestic country, and lowered prices by decreasing the costs imposed by a monopoly right over distribution.</p>
<p>All the foreign books that an online bookseller like Flipkart delivers in India are procured from international sources. Without parallel importation, Flipkart will have to ask for permission from the book publishers for each foreign book each time it makes a sale. This would cripple Flipkart's business model.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Helping book publishers</h3>
<p>Book publishers will be benefited by parallel importation, just as they are benefited by the existence of libraries and second-hand book stores. Libraries and second-hand book stores help with market segmentation, providing access to people who can't afford expensive books at much lower rates, often free. However, the existence of second-hand book stores in almost every city in India—I have personally bought second-hand books everywhere from Jhansi (Leo Tolstoy's <em>War and Peace</em>) to Delhi's Darya Ganj market (Edmund Wilson's <em>Letters on Literature and Politics</em>)—does not prevent me from buying books first hand. Indeed, Wilson's <em>Letters</em> is out of print, and cannot be bought in a store like Crosswords or Gangaram's.</p>
<p>Why do I emphasise second-hand books and libraries? They are artefacts of something variously known as the "first sale doctrine" or the "doctrine of exhaustion" in copyright law: After the first sale of a book, subsequent sales, rentals, etc., cannot be controlled by the copyright owner. Parallel importation is simply a matter of applying this doctrine to the first sale of the book internationally rather than its first sale in India. </p>
<p>Thus we see that the existence of second-hand books, libraries, and parallel imports, are all dependent on the same rule of copyright law: the first sale doctrine. This doctrine is enshrined in s.14(b)(iv) of the Indian Copyright Act, and has been interpreted by the Delhi High Court to mean first sale in India. The present amendment changes that to mean first sale internationally.</p>
<p>The introduction of the modern "public library" in the mid-19th century
led to a surge in literacy, readership, and book sales, and not a
decline. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that allowing parallel importations will lead to a decline in book sales.</p>
<h3>Helping libraries and the print-disabled<br /></h3>
<p>Even currently, many people buy books directly from abroad and have them shipped to India. This is especially necessary for libraries whose patrons—scholars and students—very often need access to the latest books. Currently, libraries often buy books from abroad from Amazon, Flipkart, Alibris, etc. Such acts, within a strict reading of the law, are not legal, since they fall afoul of s.51(b)(iv), since the import is not for the "private and domestic use" of the libraries. This is also of especial concern for organizations working with print-disabled individuals, since the number of books legally available domestically in formats accessible by the print-disabled is very small, and often need to be imported.</p>
<h3>Helping all consumers<br /></h3>
<p>An excellent report was prepared in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/publications/copyright-and-access-to-knowledge">2006 by Consumers International</a>, in which they studied the costs of textbooks in eleven countries, including India, by average purchasing power of each country's citizens, instead of absolute cost. Based on that study, and a detailed investigation of international treaties on copyright and the flexibilities allowed in them, Consumers International recommended that India should amend our law to make it clear that parallel importation of copyrighted works is legal (on page 51 of the report).</p>
<h2>Rebutting objections</h2>
<p>I will address a few specific objections raised by Mr. Abraham, Nandita Saikia, and others.</p>
<h3>1. Authors' won't lose out on royalties<br /></h3>
<p>Authors do not lose out on royalties because of parallel importation, just as they do not lose out on royalties because of libraries, nor because of second-hand book stores.
For parallel importation to take place, the books have to be purchased
legally, and that first sale itself ensures that authors are paid royalties. </p>
<p>Of
course, publishing contracts often have a clause that remaindered books will
not garner royalties. But in that case, the problem is not parallel importation,
but the overstocking and subsequent <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindering of books</a>. The authors wouldn't be paid (or would be paid very little) for remaindered books even if the books weren't imported into India. Parallel importation
does not in any way change that.</p>
<p><strong>Indian authors</strong></p>
<p>There is a worry that an Indian author would be hit if remaindered copies of his/her books started entering the Indian market. That would mean that foreign publishers had overstocked that Indian author's book, i.e., that the expectation from the book was much higher than the actual demand. If this happens infrequently, then the author hasn't much to worry about (since remainders aren't a big problem). If it happens frequently, then firstly the publisher should re-adjust to the market and realize that demand is low. Secondly, the author needs to worry more about quality of the book (and whether it caters to foreign audiences) than the possible effects that the availability of cheaper copies of that book would have.</p>
<h3>2. Remaindered books are in publishers' control<br /></h3>
<p>India has amongst the cheapest book prices in the world. Then why would book publishers be wary of even cheaper books overrunning the Indian market? The reason, Mr. Abraham tells us, is <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Remaindered_book">remaindered books</a>. He believes that remaindered books have the potential to destroy the Indian book
market. Remaindering of books has been happening for decades. If remaindered books haven't already
destroyed all book markets worldwide, then it is unlikely that they will
do so suddenly just because parallel importation of books is permitted
in India.</p>
<p>Remainders happen because of a miscalculation by the publisher: expecting more demand than was actually present. What happens with that excess stock is controlled by the publishers. They can choose to pulp them, burn them, or even push them into other channels of commerce that Mr. Abraham points out exist in the mature, frontline markets where remaindering happens:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the reason why they have not destroyed book markets worldwide is because the mature markets exist with multiple strands (chains and high street stores, independents, direct sellers, online sellers, and supermarkets)—so a direct seller will sell the same book a high street store is selling at a much reduced price without it affecting the business of each strand. Each strand is discrete and price sensitivity does not matter the same way. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since those multiple strands of commerce exist, each of which would enable the seller to get a better profit (being in a developed country) than in India, there is no reason to fear overrunning of the market with remainders.</p>
<h3>3. Dumping of books should be tackled separately<br /></h3>
<p>An extension of the remaindered books concern is that of India becoming a land where all books will be dumped. This hasn't happened in case of countries like New Zealand,
Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Cameroon, Pakistan, Argentina, Israel, Vietnam, South Korea,
Japan, and a host of other countries, all of which allow for parallel importation of books. In a 1998 judgment, the United States Supreme Court, <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">some parallel imports of copyrighted goods were legal</a>.
That ruling did not cause the downfall of the US book market, despite
cheaper books being available outside the US. Australia has allowed for
parallel importation of books in one form or another since 1991 (when
the law was changed to allow for all parallel of all books that weren't
introduced in the Australian market within 30 days of it being released
elsewhere in the world). New Zealand did a study after removing the ban
on parallel importation, and declared that cheaper books were available
on a more timely basis than previously. None of these countries have
been overrun by grey market books.</p>
<p><strong>Customs laws are better suited</strong></p>
<p>Even assuming that this fear is well-founded, copyright law is not the best way to deal with the problem. Dumping of books should be regulated by customs laws (anti-dumping and countervailing duties). Using copyright law to regulate apprehended book dumping practices (which might not even happen) is like using a trawler hoping to catch only shrimp: it is naive to think that there won't be unintended <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bycatch">bycatch</a>, and the consequences can be disastrous for the knowledge environment in case of books.</p>
<p>Customs laws are more flexible because they are imposed by the executive, and unlike copyright law, can be more easily changed as per requirements. So even if copyright law allows for parallel importation of copyrighted works, a special case can be made out by publishers in case of trade publishing, for instance, and that can be targetted specifically by imposing duties. However, the inverse cannot happen, since we are not aware of any mechanism whereby libraries, consumers and others can get to 'override' the provision in the Copyright Act.</p>
<p>Additionally, these duties can be made to operate only if the book is already being sold in India; these duties can be made to operate only on new books. A ban on parallel importation, on the other hand will apply equally to books that are out of print, to books that the original copyright owner has not even granted an exclusive Indian distributorship and are not even being sold in India. It goes right to the heart of freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to receive information.</p>
<h3>4. Non-printing of low-priced editions for India because of "unsecure"
market won't happen<br /></h3>
<p>Parallel importation, which is what the amendment to s.2(m) allows for,
affects only importation. It does not in any way affect publication in
India or exports. Exporting low-priced Indian editions to countries which allow for parallel importation of books, is currently of doubtful legality. [Update: Earlier an incorrect claim was made in this post that such export was legal. The legal status is not that clear. While there is a Delhi High Court case that makes exports of low-priced editions illegal in the context of sale to the United States, it specifically states that the decision <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">does not depend on whether India allows for parallel importation or not</a>.] The
amendment does not change that position, for reasons explained at greater length <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-law-and-parallel-exports" class="external-link">in a separate post</a>. The incentives to print
low-priced editions hence does not decrease. If anything it will increase
because currently books that are not available as low-priced editions
cannot be imported without exclusive licensing, and with a change in this position, the incentive to compete in the form of low-priced editions will increase.</p>
<p>Indeed, even before that 2009 Delhi High Court judgment prohibiting exports to the United States, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. And even before the 2005 Bombay High Court judgment prohibiting parallel imports, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. This won't change, regardless of the law, because India is an increasingly profitable and expanding market, and low-priced editions are a necessity in this market due to lower average income.</p>
<h3>5. Rhetoric flourish and the law: Open and closed markets<br /></h3>
<p>Mr. Abraham asks how many authors one can name from open markets like Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as a sign of the 'history of creativity' in each of these countries and territories. It might be just as well to ask how many authors he can name from closed markets like Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, and Ukraine. One's ability to name authors from a country has less to do with the open/closed nature of its market and more to do with one's general knowledge.</p>
<p>Additionally, the 'mature' markets which he wishes India to emulate—United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia—are more ambiguous on parallel importation than he would have us believe. In the United States, the legality of a segment of parallel importation of copyrighted goods reached the United States Supreme Court in <em><a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Quality_King_v._L%27anza">Quality King v. L'anza</a></em> in 1998, in which the court held in favour of the importer. </p>
<p>The question reached the US Supreme Court again last year in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/costco-v-omega/"><em>Costco v. Omega</em></a>, but the court split on it 4-4, and <a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2010/12/16/costco-omega-libraries-and-copyright/">did not deliver a binding precedent on parallel importation</a>. Thus, for all intents and purposes, under copyright law, the United States is an open market. </p>
<p>In the United Kingdom, as per European Union law, <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/uk">parallel importation is permitted from anywhere within the EU</a>. And in Australia, parallel importation of parallel goods is largely allowed, with <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2010/australia">some conditions to encourage faster publishing in Australia of foreign books.</a></p>
<p>Most importantly, none of the markets held up as role models are developing countries. India is. This makes all the difference, as the Consumers International report underscores.</p>
<h2>Standing Committee consultations</h2>
<h3>Lack of wide consultation<br /></h3>
<p>On one point we are in complete agreement with Mr. Abraham, which is his point regarding lack of adequate consultation. While there was a good amount of consultation during the drafting stage, when a wide-ranging public consultation was held in 2006, this was not repeated in 2010 by the Standing Committee. Further, the Standing Committee only gave fifteen days for responses to its call for comments.</p>
<h3>Publishers were represented<br /></h3>
<p>While Mr. Abraham states that only the Authors Guild was represented before the Standing Committee, by going through the report prepared by it, we see that the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India were also called to testify before the Standing Committee. </p>
<h3>Libraries, students, consumers were not represented</h3>
<p>However, while the authors supported it, and the publishers opposed it, no one got to hear the voice of the readers, the students, the libraries, the book buyers. For instance, not a single consumer rights organization or library association was called before the Standing Committee. Internationally, organizations like Consumers International, the International Federation of Library Associations, and EIFL (an international library organization) are invited to meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization and their views are taken with seriousness as they are a very important part of the copyright environment.</p>
<h3>Department's and Standing Committee's reasoning</h3>
<p>We reproduce below four paragraphs from the Standing Committee's report, which elucidate many of the reasons for going in for this particular amendment.</p>
<blockquote>7.10<br />All the reservations/objections raised by the various stakeholders [including the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India, whose objections are quoted in an earlier paragraph of the report -ed.] were taken up by the Committee with the Department with the intent of having full understanding of the background necessitating the proposed amendment and its exact impact on the various stakeholders. As clarified by the Department, the main purpose of this amendment was to allow for imports of copyright materials (e.g. books) from other countries. It was in accordance with Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement relating to exhaustion of rights whereunder developing countries could facilitate access to copyright works at affordable cost. Exhaustion of rights (popularly called as parallel import) was a legal mechanism used to regulate prices of IPR protected materials. This was viable only if the price of the same works in the Indian market was very high when compared to the price in other countries from where it was imported to India. <br /><br />7.11<br />Committee's attention was drawn to the fact that majority of educational books used in India were imported from other countries particularly from US and EU. There was an increasing tendency by publishers to give territorial licence to publish the books at very high rates. The low price editions were invariably the old editions than the latest ones. This provision would compel the Indian publishers to price the works reasonably so that it would not be viable for a distributor to import same works to India from other countries. This would also save India foreign exchange on the payment of royalties (licence fee) by the Indian publishers to foreigners. <br /><br />7.12<br />Committee was also given to understand by the representatives of the publishing industry that Scheme of the Copyright Law was entirely different from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Patent Act, 1970. The application of the standards and principles of these two laws through the proposed amendment of section 2(m) would completely dismantle the business model currently employed, rendering several industries unviable. On a specific query in this regard the Department informed that the concept of international exhaustion provided in section 107 A of the Patent Act, 1971 and in section 30 (3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and in section 2 (m) of the copyright law were similar. This provision was in tune with the national policy on exhaustion of rights.<br /><br />7.13 <br />After analysing the viewpoints of all the stakeholders along with the clarifications given thereupon by the Department, the Committee is of the view that proposed inclusion of the proviso in the definition of the term 'infringing copy' seems to be a step in the right direction, specially in the prevailing situation at the ground level. <strong>The present practice of publishers publishing books under a territorial license, resulting in sale of books at very high rates cannot be considered a healthy practice.</strong> [Emphasis added.] The Committee also notes that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. It has been clearly specified that only those works published outside India with the permission of the author and imported into India will not be considered an infringed copy. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. <strong>Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law.</strong> [emphasis added.] The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to Government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed, i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of.<br /></blockquote>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>It is clear that allowing for parallel imports is not likely to hurt publishers, but will result in an expansion of the reading market. It is mainly foreign publishers' monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian
publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2019-02-01T17:41:26ZBlog EntryProblems Remain with Standing Committee's Report on Copyright Amendments
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments
<b>The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (under which ministry copyright falls) recently tabled their report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 before Parliament. There is much to be applauded in the report, including the progressive stand that the Committee has taken on the issue of providing access by persons with disabilities. This post, however, will concern itself with highlighting some of the problems with that report, along with some very important considerations that got missed out of the entire amendment debate.</b>
<h2 id="internal-source-marker_0.7517305351026772">Fair Dealings and Intermediary Liability</h2>
<p>The
amendments make a number of changes to s.52(1) of the Act, including to
the fair dealing provisions under s.52(1)(a), and introduction of two
new sub-sections (s.52(1)(b) and (c)) with s.52(1)(c) introducing a
modicum of protection for intermediaries involved in "transient and
incidental storage for the purpose of providing electronic links, access
or integration" (but only if the copyright holder has not expressed any
objections, and if the intermediary believes it to be non-infringing).
The provision allows the intermediary to ask the person complaining
against it to provide a court order within 14 days, since the
intermediary is in no position to determine the judicial question of
whether the copyright holder holds copyright and if the third party has
violated that copyright. However this provision was opposed tooth and
nail by the copyright holders' associations that dominated the
representations, while intermediaries and consumers remained woefully
under-represented before the Standing Committee.</p>
<p>Predictably,
the Standing Committee dealt a blow against intermediaries and
consumers by asking the government to review the "viability of the
duration of 14 days... by way of balancing the views of the stakeholders
as well as the legal requirement in the matter". They recommended a
relatively minor change of changing the phrase "transient and
incidental" to "transient or incidental". By doing this, they failed to
address the concerns raised by Yahoo India, Google India, and also
failed to acknowledge the submissions made by 22 civil society
organizations (available here:
http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information Provision</h2>
<p>The
amendments aim to bring about two new criminal provisions, and seek to
make circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks)
and alteration of rights management information (which are embedded into
digital files and signals) illegal.</p>
<p>The Standing Committee heard a number of organizations on technological protection measures, which <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">we had argued</a>
are harmful as they a) cannot distinguish between fair dealing and
infringement, and b) are harmful even if a legal right to circumvent for
fair dealings is provided because the technological means to circumvent
doesn't necessarily exist. (Imagine a law that says that breaking a
lock using lock-breaking implements isn't a crime if it is done to enter
into your own house. Such a law doesn't help you if you can't get your
hands on the lock-breaking implements in the first place.) The Indian
Broadcasting Federation, the Business Software Alliance, and the Motion
Picture Association (which represents six studios, all American), the
Indian Music Industry, and the Indian Performing Right Society Limited
all felt that this provision did not go far enough. The Motion Picture
Association, for instance, wants not just controls over that which
copyright covers</p>
<p>Yahoo
India and Google India on the other hand thought that provision went
too far. Google made it clear that they thought having criminal
repercussions for circumvention was clearly disproportionate. Thus, a
clearer split is established between old media companies; the old media
companies clutching on to straws that they feel will save them from
adapting their business practices to the digital environment, and online
companies that understand the digital environment better having a
markedly different idea.</p>
<p>Currently
section 65B (read with the definition of "Rights Management
Information" in section 2(xa)) of the proposed amendments ensures that
Rights Management Information cannot be used to spy on users. The Indian
Reprographic Rights Organization however believes that this is wrong:
it believes that copyright owners should have the ability to track users
without their consent. Yahoo India, on the other hand, believes that
this is a harmful provision, and state that "the imposition of criminal
and monetary liability could adversely affect consumers", and cites the
instance of difficulties that would be faced by "entities engaged in
creating copies of any copyright material into a format specially
designed for persons suffering from disability" because of the language
of the provision that requires knowledge instead of intention. The
committee responds to this by summing up with a tautology, stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The
Committee is of the view that the parties responsible for distribution
or broadcasting or communication to the public through authorized
licence from the author or rights holder and who do not remove any
rights management information deliberately for making unauthorized
copies need not worry about this provision as long as their act is as
per the framework of this provision.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Implications of Standing Committee's Report Unclear</h2>
<p>Many of the comments made by the Standing Committee are unclear. On compulsory licensing, the committee states:</p>
<blockquote>The
Committee also takes note of the proposed amendments in section 31 A
relating to compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works. The
provision of compulsory licence for orphaned works available under this
section is proposed to be extended to published works as well. Like in
the case of section 31, extension of applicability to all foreign works
(including film, DVDs, etc.) could be violative of Berne Convention and
TRIPS Agreement and seem to fall short of the minimum obligations
imposed by such instruments. The Committee is of the view that future
implication of proposed amendment in Section 31A vis-à-vis India's
commitment to international agreement needs to be free from any
ambiguity so as to prevent any negative fallout.<br /></blockquote>
<p>However,
the usage of the phrase "could be violative" leaves it unclear whether
the Standing Committee believes the proposed amendments to be violative
of the TRIPS Agreement or not. All that the Standing Committee says is
that the provision needs to be unambiguous, and that TRIPS compliance
must be ensured. That word of caution does not directly rebut the
government's contention that the proposed amendment is TRIPS-compliant.</p>
<p>Similarly,
the Committee's views on increase of copyright term for cinematograph
films is unclear. While commenting on the clause that introduces the
term increase (as part of the proposal to include the principal director
as an author of the film along with the producer), the Committee
states:</p>
<blockquote>It,
therefore, recommends that the proposal to include principal director
as author of the film along with producer may be dropped altogether.<br /></blockquote>
<p>While
this presumably means that the proposal to increase term is also being
rejected, that is not made clear by the Committee's comments.</p>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Increased Copyright Duration, Expansive Moral Rights and Other Negative Changes</h2>
<p>In
the submission of CIS and twenty-one other civil society organizations
to the Standing Committee, we highlighted all of the below concerns.
However, our submission was not tabled before the Standing Committee
for reasons unknown to us.</p>
<ul><li><strong>WCT
and WPPT compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights. Given that
the Standing Committee has recommended against some aspects of WCT
compliance (such as the move to change "hire" to "commercial rental")
and that without such changes India cannot be a signatory to the WCT, it
is unclear why other forms of WCT compliance (such as TPMs) should be
implemented.</li><li><strong>Increase
in duration of copyright</strong>: The duration of copyright of photographs and
video recordings is sought to be increased. The term of copyright for photographs is being increased from sixty years from creation to sixty years from death of the photographer. This will
significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for
internationally, especially through its push for the Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization.<br /></li><li><strong>Moral
rights</strong>: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and
performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made
without requisite safeguards.</li><li><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to
produce, and while the Standing Committee has addressed the concerns of
some in the music industry, it hasn't addressed the concerns of artists
and consumers.</li></ul>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities</h2>
<p>The
following important changes should have been made by the government,
but haven't. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone
beyond the proposed amendments, it hasn't touched upon any of the
following, which we believe are very important changes that are required
to be made.</p>
<ul><li><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial
copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for
circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights
Management Information also.</li><li><strong>Government
works:</strong> Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by
them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march
towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of
s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection would except "the
reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any
government work" as being non-infringing uses.</li><li><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by
our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which
is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.</li><li><strong>Educational exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.</li><li><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</li><li><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to Internet
intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects
such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots
innovation are not stifled.</li><li><strong>Fair
dealing and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would
not take away from the existing exceptions.</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-06T07:50:12ZBlog EntryPrivacy and the Indian Copyright Act
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act
<b>India's Copyright Act was established in 1957, and is in the process of being placed before the Parliament in 2010. The provisions in the proposed Bill will work to make the Act WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) compliant. When looking at privacy in the context of copyright four key questions arise, says Elonnai Hickock as she analyses privacy in the context of the Indian Copyright Act. </b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technologies such as digital rights management technologies were developed to be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to control the mode of use of certain digital devices and contents. DRM technologies pose as a privacy threat, because in their ability to monitor what is happening to a copyrighted work, they are also able to collect personal information and send it back to a host without knowledge of the user. The host is then able to use that data for marketing or commercial purposes. In the Copyright Act, 1957 there are no current provisions against DRM circumvention. In the proposed Copyright Bill 2010 there are two proposed provisions: to prevent anti circumvention of DRM technologies and one provision that clarifies what is a DRM technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Section 2 (xa)</b>: Defines Rights Management Information – it is important to note that within the definition of RMI the provision specifically excludes any device or procedure intended to identify the user from the definition.<br /><br /><b>Section 65A (1)</b> : Protection of Technological Measures - Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine includes that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, shall maintain a complete record of such other persons including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him.<br /><br /><b>Section 65B</b>: Protection of Rights Management Information – Any person who removes, or distributes, copies, or broadcasts any rights management information without authority shall be by punishable with imprisonment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Recommendation</i>: We find, not just exclusively to the Copyright Act, but that in all Indian legislation the privacy of an individual is brought into question, because there are no safeguards against the commercialization of information, and no formal process of redress if an individual discovers that his information is being used without his consent/prior knowledge. We would recommend that (perhaps appropriately in legislation on data protection) a provision be included to clearly articulate that the collection and commercialization of information and personal data is prohibited by DRM technologies and host companies, and a method of redress be put in place.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Under the copyright, does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Because DRM technologies have the ability to collect user information, which could potentially be done through the use of spyware, it is important that an individual has the ability to know if and when their information is being collected. To do this an individual can discover the technological principles of a device, object, or system through a process known as reverse engineering. Currently reverse engineering is permitted under provision 52 (ac). It is further supported by provision 65A (2) (f).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Current Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Provision 52 (ac): Certain acts not to be in infringement of copyright include: the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programs in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any elements of the program while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer program was supplied. The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:<br />65A (2) (f): Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from, doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user.<br /><br /><i>Recommendation</i>: We have no recommendation, but see this as a positive provision.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India under the current Copyright Act, 1957 there are no provisions for the benefit of disabled persons, thus currently permission from copyright holders needs to be exclusively sought every time the visually challenged person requires access. Under the Constitution of India and the Bernes Convention, India has committed to enshrining the rights of the disabled.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 31B: will grant compulsory license in respect of publication of any copyrighted works not covered by the exception under section 52 (1) (zb). For this a registered intermediary organization that is recognized under The Persons with Disability Act shall apply to the Copyright Board for approval. The board will evaluate the applicant and application, and grant permission if it sees fit. The intermediary will then be responsible for monitoring the usage of the copyrighted work to ensure that copyright law is not violated.<br /><br /><i>Recommendation</i>: Though currently the Indian legislation does not threaten the privacy of the disabled, we find it concerning that under the WIPO copyright treaty – the anonymity of the disabled would be compromised.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">What is On the Horizon?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As copyright and IP is a constantly evolving issue, countries are consistently amending and changing their laws. With the flow of peoples across borders increasing, Indians will be affected by different international policies that could pose to infringe upon their privacy, for example cross-border checks or three strike regimes, which will punish a person if caught infringing copyright three times. For example: France has proposed cutting off Internet to those caught infringing on copyright three times.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ACTA is a proposed legislation. Its objective is to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Partners in the negotiations include: The United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland. The treaty will oblige each contracting party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures necessary to ensure the application of the treaty. Though ACTA has not been enacted, many worry that ACTA would facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process. The Act could allow for random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies.<br /><i><br />Recommendation</i>: We find that copyright infringement does not appear to justify cross border searches or other forms of regulating. ACTA and other international treaties raise the question that if India became compliant with certain international standards, would the standards would be too stringent without safeguards, and pose as a risk to a person’s privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCopyright2013-08-06T13:37:27ZBlog EntryPrivacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-privacy
<b>In this post the author examines the issue of privacy in light of the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as amended by the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2010. Four key questions are examined in detail and the author gives suitable recommendations for each of the questions that arise.</b>
<p>India's Copyright Act was established in 1857 and was most recently amended in 2010. Although India at present is not a member of WIPO, the provisions in the proposed Bill will work to make the Act WIPO compliant. When looking at privacy in the context of copyright, four key questions arise:</p>
<h2>How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian Law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?</h2>
<p>Technologies such as digital rights management technologies were developed to be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices. DRM technologies pose as a privacy threat, because in their ability to monitor what is happening to a copyrighted work, they are also able to collect personal information and send it back to a host without knowledge of the user. The host is then able to use that data for marketing or commercial purposes. In the Copyright Act, 1957 there are no current provisions against DRM circumvention. In the proposed Copyright Bill 2010 there are two proposed provisions to prevent anti circumvention of DMR technologies, and one provision that clarifies what is a DMR technology. </p>
<h3>Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p><em>Section 2 (xa)</em>: Defines Rights Management information. <br /><em>Section 65A</em> : Protection of Technological Measures - Any person who knowingly makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years. The section includes that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, shall maintain a complete record of such other persons including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him. <br />Section 65B: Protection of Rights Management Information – Any person who removes or distributes, copies or broadcasts any rights management information without authority shall be by punishable with imprisonment. </p>
<h3>Recommendation</h3>
<p>We find that in this provision the privacy of an individual is brought into question, because there are no safeguards against the commercialization of information, and no formal process of redress if an individual discovers that his information is being used without his consent/prior knowledge. We would recommend that it be clearly articulated in the provision that the collection and commercialization of information and personal data is prohibited by DRM technologies and host companies, and a method of redress be put in place. </p>
<h2>Under the present copyright does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?</h2>
<p>Because DRM technologies often employ the use of spy-ware, it is important that an individual has the ability to know if spy-ware is being used on their computer systems. Currently reverse engineering is permitted under provision 52 (ac). The amended version of provision 52 is less clear on if reverse engineering would be allowed. </p>
<h3>Current Legislation</h3>
<p><em>Provision 52 (ac)</em>: Certain acts not to be in infringement of copyright include the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programs in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any elements of the program while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer program was supplied. The following acts shall not constitute in infringement of copyright, namely:</p>
<h3>Proposed</h3>
<p>The proposed amendment reads:</p>
<p class="discreet"> 52 (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyrights, namely: </p>
<p class="discreet">(i) (a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work not being a computer program for the purposes of:</p>
<p class="discreet">(ii) private use, including research</p>
<p class="discreet">(iii) Criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work.</p>
<p>The exclusion of computer program in the proposed bill makes it unclear under what circumstances reverse engineering would be allowed.</p>
<h3>Recommendation</h3>
<p>We would recommend that for clarity purposes a specific clause be added to the act that details under what circumstances a person is allowed to reverse engineer a product for protection of their own privacy. </p>
<h2>How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy? <br /></h2>
<p>In India under the current Copyright Act, 1957 there are no provisions for the benefit of disabled persons, thus currently permission from copyright holders needs to be exclusively sought every time the visually challenged person requires access. Under the Constitution of India and the Berne Convention, India has committed to enshrining the rights of the disabled. </p>
<h3>Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p>The proposed amendment of the Act will grant compulsory license in respect of publication of any copyrighted works not covered by the exception under section 52 (1) (zb).</p>
<p>The Bill also proposes a board that would establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. This compromises the anonymity that most individuals enjoy when a disabled person tries to access a digital library.</p>
<h3>Recommendation<br /></h3>
<p>We recommend that the proposed Bill limits the authentication process a disabled person must go through when accessing digital libraries, etc, and the extent to which records are to be kept of transaction This will serve to protect the anonymity and privacy of disabled persons.</p>
<h2>What is On the horizon?</h2>
<p>As copyright and IP is a constantly evolving issue, countries are consistently amending and changing their laws. With the flow of peoples across borders increasing, Indians will be affected by different international policies that could pose to infringe upon their privacy, for example, cross border checks or three strike regimes. </p>
<h3>Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</h3>
<p>ACTA is a proposed legislation with the objective to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Partners in the negotiations include the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland. The treaty will oblige each Contracting Party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures necessary to ensure the application of the treaty. Though ACTA has not been enacted, many worry that ACTA would facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process. The Act would allow for random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies. </p>
<h3>Recommendation</h3>
<p>We find that copyright infringement does not appear to justify a three strike regime or cross border searches. ACTA and other international treaties raise the question that if India became compliant with certain international standards, the standards would be too stringent without safeguards, and pose as a risk to a person’s privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-privacy'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-privacy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-23T03:25:02ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis
<b>CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.</b>
<p>
The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is <a title="Copyright Bill Analysis" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission">available here</a>. Given below is the summary of our submissions:</p>
<h2 class="western">Existing Copyright Act</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright
Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing
country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of
interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of
creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest
served by wide availability and usability of that material. For
instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for: </p>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">compulsory and
statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works
available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">cover versions:
recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">widely-worded
right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual
use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY">These provisions of
our Act <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist/report/india">have been lauded</a>,<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a></sup>
and India has been rated as <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/summary-report-2010">the most balanced copyright system in a
global survey</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"></a></sup>
conducted of over 34 countries by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">Consumers International</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"></a></sup>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Parliament
has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying
heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of
the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded,
and importantly, needs to be maintained.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<h2 class="western">Proposed Amendments</h2>
<h3 class="western">Some positive amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair
Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental</strong>: All works
(including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered
the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few
other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and
non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Persons with
disabilities</strong>: There is finally an attempt at addressing the
concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are
completely useless the way they are currently worded.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Public
Libraries</strong>: They can now make electronic copies of works they
own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Education</strong>:
Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of
works, & scope of use).</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Statutory and
compulsory licensing</strong>: Some new statutory licensing provisions
(including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing
compulsory licensing provisions.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
societies</strong>: These are now responsible to authors and not owners
of works.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Open
licences</strong>: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content
licensing is now simpler.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Partial
exemption of online intermediaries</strong>:
Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has
been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Performer’s
rights</strong>: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that
performers had to communicate their performance to the public has
been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate
sound/video recordings remains.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Enforcement</strong>:
Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone
to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Some negative amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>WCT and WPPT
compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Increase in
duration of copyright</strong>: This will significantly reduce the public
domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Technological
Protection Measures</strong>: TPMs, which have been shown to be
anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced,
are sought to be brought into Indian law.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more
difficult to produce.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Moral rights</strong>:
Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s
moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without
requisite safeguards.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Missed opportunities</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Government-funded
works</strong>: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid
for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected
to march towards with the Right to Information Act.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum
required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the
public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural
progress.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual,
non-commercial copyright infringement.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Libraries and
archives</strong>: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still
too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Educational
exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully
embrace distance and digital education.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to
Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based
peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of
social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair dealing
and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This
would not take away from the existing exceptions.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeConsumer RightsCopyrightFair DealingsPublic AccountabilityIntellectual Property RightsRTIFeaturedBroadcastingPublicationsSubmissionsTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-21T06:01:54ZBlog EntryA Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers. </b>
<div class="visualClear">In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Download the guide <a title="A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf">here</a>, and please feel free to comment below.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">You may also download a <a title="India-EU FTA TRIPS Comparison Chart" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/India-EU_FTA_Chart.odt">chart</a> comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Following is a summary of CIS' findings:</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">
<div class="visualClear">
<ul><li>India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.</li><li>The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.</li><li>The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.</li><li>India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.</li><li>The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.</li><li>In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.</li><li>An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.</li><li>The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers. </li><li>The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement</a>
</p>
No publishergloverDevelopmentConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeDiscussionEconomicsAnalysisTechnological Protection MeasuresIntermediary LiabilityinnovationIntellectual Property RightsPatentsPublications2011-08-30T13:06:03ZBlog EntryThe 2010 Special 301 Report Is More of the Same, Slightly Less Shrill
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
<b>Pranesh Prakash examines the numerous flaws in the Special 301 from the Indian perspective, to come to the conclusion that the Indian government should openly refuse to acknowledge such a flawed report. He notes that the Consumers International survey, to which CIS contributed the India report, serves as an effective counter to the Special 301 report.</b>
<h1>Special 301 Report: Unbalanced Hypocrisy</h1>
<p>The United States Trade Representative has put yet another edition of the Special 301 report which details the copyright law and policy wrongdoings of the US's trading partners. Jeremy Malcolm of Consumers International notes that the report this year claims to be "well-balanced assessment of intellectual property protection and enforcement ... taking into account diverse factors", but:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[I]n fact, the report largely continues to be very one-sided. As in previous editions, it lambasts developing countries for failing to meet unrealistically stringent standards of IP protection that exceed their obligations under international law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More the report changes, <a href="http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/blog/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009">the more it stays the same</a>. <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4684/195/">Despite having wider consultations</a> than just the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA, consisting of US-based IP-maximalist lobbyists like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, Association of American Publishers, and Business Software Alliance) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA, consisting of US-based pharma multinationals), things haven't really changed much in terms of the shoddiness of the Special 301 report.</p>
<h1>India and the 2010 Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>The Special 301 report for 2010 contains the following assessment of India:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address the unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs remains in draft form and should be enacted in the near term. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This short dismissal of the Indian IPR regime, and subsequent classification of India as a "Priority Watch List" country reveals the great many problems with the Special 301.</p>
<h2>On Copyrights</h2>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The report notes that there are "concerns over India's inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement". However, nowhere does it bother to point out precisely <em>how</em> India's legal framework is inadequate, and how this is negatively affecting authors and creators, consumers, or even the industry groups (MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc.) that give input to the USTR via the IPAA. Nor does it acknowledge the well-publicised fact that the statistics put out by these bodies have time and again <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">proven to be wrong</a>:</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Apart from this bald allegation which has not backing, there is a bald statement about India needing to bring its copyright law "in line with international standards" including "the WIPO Internet Treaties". The WIPO Internet Treaties given that more than half the countries of the world are not signatories to either of the WIPO Internet Treaties (namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty), calling them 'international standards' is suspect. That apart, both those treaties are TRIPS-plus treaties (requiring protections greater than the already-high standards of the TRIPS Agreement). India has not signed either of them. It should not be obligated to do so. Indeed, Ruth Okediji, a noted copyright scholar, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433848">states</a>:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. [...] The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Some of the of the 'problems' noted in the report are actually seen as being beneficial by many researchers and scholars such as Lawrence Liang, Achal Prabhala, Perihan Abou Zeid <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/iipenforcement/bibliography">and others</a>, who argue that <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">lax enforcement has enabled access to knowledge and promotion of innovation</a>. In a panel on 'Access to Knowledge' at the Internet Governance Forum, <a href="http://a2knetwork.org/access-knowledge-internet-governance-forum">Lea Shaver, Jeremy Malcolm and others</a> who have been involved in that Access to Knowledge movement noted that lack of strict enforcement played a positive role in many developing countries. However, they also noted, with a fair bit of trepidation, that this was sought to be changed at the international level through treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement (ACTA).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The scope of an optical disc law are quite different from copyright law. The report condemns "unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs", however it does not make it clear that what it is talking about is not just unlicensed copying of films (which is already prohibited under the Copyright Act) but the manufacture and distribution of blank CDs and DVDs as well. The need for such a law is assumed, but never demonstrated. It is onerous for CD and DVD manufacturers (such as the Indian company Moserbaer), and is an overbearing means of attacking piracy.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The report calls for "improve[ment] [of India's] criminal enforcement regime" and for "deterrent" sentences and expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases. While we agree with the last suggestion, the first two are most unacceptable. Increased criminal enforcement of a what is essentially a private monopoly right is undesirable. Copyright infringment on non-commercial scales should not be criminal offences at all. What would deter people from infringing copyright laws are not "deterrent sentences" but more convenient and affordable access to the copyright work being infringed.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>On Patents</h2>
<p>Thankfully, this year the Special 301 report does not criticise the Indian Patent Act for providing for post-grant opposition to patent filings, as it has in previous years. However, it still criticises section 3(d) of the Patent Act which ensures that 'evergreening' of drug patents is not allowed by requiring for new forms of known substances to be patented only if "the enhancement of the known efficacy of [the known] substance" is shown. Thus, the US wishes India to change its domestic law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better ("enhancement of the known efficacy"). For instance, "new means of drug delivery" will not, contrary to the assertions of the Special 301 report and the worries of PhRMA, be deemed unpatentable.</p>
<p>The United States has been going through much turmoil over its patent system. Reform of the patent system is currently underway in the US through administrative means, judicial means, as well as legislative means. One of the main reasons for this crumbling of the patent system has been the low bar for patentability (most notably the 'obviousness' test) in the United States and the subsequent over-patenting. An <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/447/303/case.html">American judgment</a> even noted that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable subject matter. It is well-nigh impossible to take American concerns regarding our high patent standards seriously, given this context.</p>
<h2>Miscellanea</h2>
<p>The harms of counterfeit medicine, as <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">we have noted earlier</a>, are separate issues that are best dealt under health safety regulations and consumer laws, rather than trademark law.</p>
<p>Data exclusivity has been noted to be harmful to the progress of generics, and seeks to extend proprietary rights over government-mandated test data. It is [clear from the TRIPS Agreement][de-trips] that data exclusivity is not mandatory. There are clear rationale against it, and the Indian pharmaceutical industry [is dead-set against it][de-india]. Still, the United States Trade Representative persists in acting as a corporate shill, calling on countries such as India to implement such detrimental laws.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottowa <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125">astutely notes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Looking beyond just Canada, the list [of countries condemned by the Special 301 report] is so large, that it is rendered meaningless. According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people live in countries without effective intellectual property protection. Since the report does not include any African countries outside of North Africa, the U.S. is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meet its standard for IP protection. Canada is not outlier, it's in good company with the fastest growing economies in the world (the BRIC countries are there) and European countries like Norway, Italy, and Spain.
In other words, the embarrassment is not Canadian law. Rather, the embarrassment falls on the U.S. for promoting this bullying exercise and on the Canadian copyright lobby groups who seemingly welcome the chance to criticize their own country. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>His comments apply equally well for India as well.</p>
<h1>IIPA's Recommendation for the Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>Thankfully, this year <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDIA.pdf">IIPA's recommendations</a> have not been directly copied into the Special 301 report. (They couldn't be incorporated, as seen below.) For instance, the IIPA report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The industry is also concerned about moves by the government to consider mandating the use of open source software and software of only domestic origin. Though such policies have not yet been implemented, IIPA and BSA urge that this area be carefully monitored.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Breaking that into two bit:</p>
<h2>Open Source</h2>
<p>Firstly, it is curious to see industry object to legal non-pirated software. Secondly, many of BSA's members (if not most) use open source software, and a great many of them also produce open source software. <a href="http://hp.sourceforge.net/">HP</a> and <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/ossstds/">IBM</a> have been huge supporters of open source software. Even <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/">Microsoft has an open source software division</a>. [Intel][intel], <a href="http://www.sap.com/usa/about/newsroom/press.epx?pressid=11410">SAP</a>, <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/open_source/index.html">Cisco</a>, <a href="http://linux.dell.com/projects.shtml">Dell</a>, <a href="http://www.sybase.com/developer/opensource">Sybase</a>, <a href="http://www.entrust.com/news/index.php?s=43&item=702">Entrust</a>, <a href="http://about.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_room/press_release/articles/2009/IntuitPartnerPlatformAddsOpenSourceCommunity.html">Intuit</a>, <a href="http://www.synopsys.com/community/interoperability/pages/libertylibmodel.aspx">Synopsys</a>, <a href="http://www.apple.com/opensource/">Apple</a>, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/22/jbuilder_eclipse/">Borland</a>, <a href="http://w2.cadence.com/webforms/squeak/">Cadence</a>, <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=6153839">Autodesk</a>, and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967593-16.html">Siemens</a> are all members of BSA which support open source software / produce at least some open source software. And <em>all</em> BSA members rely on open source software (as part of their core products, their web-server, their content management system, etc.) to a lesser or greater extent. BSA's left hand doesn't seem to know what its right hand -- its members -- are doing. Indeed, the IIPA does not seem to realise that the United States' government itself uses [open source software], and has been urged to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7841486.stm">look at FOSS very seriously</a> and is doing so, especially under CIO Vivek Kundra. And that may well be the reason why the USTR could not include this cautionary message in the Special 301 report.</p>
<h2>Domestic Software</h2>
<p>As <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/indias-copyright-proposals-are-un-american-and-thats-bad.ars">this insightful article by Nate Anderson in Ars Technica</a> notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Open source is bad enough, but a "buy Indian" law? That would be <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng">an outrage</a> and surely something the US government would not itself engage in <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/ARRA.aspx?lang=eng">as recently as last year</a>. Err, right?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, the IIPA submission do not provide any reference for their claim that "domestic origin" software is being thought of being made a mandatory requirement in governmental software procurement.<br />
</p>
<h2>WCT, WPPT, Camcording, and Statutory Damages</h2>
<p>The IIPA submission also wish that India would:</p>
<ol>
<li>Adopt a system of statutory damages in civil cases; allow compensation to be awarded in criminal cases;</li>
<li>Adopt an optical disc law;</li>
<li>Enact Copyright Law amendments consistent with the WCT and WPPT;</li>
<li>Adopt an anti-camcording criminal provision.</li>
</ol>
<p>Quick counters:</p>
<ol>
<li>Statutory damages (that is, an amount based on statute rather than actual loss) would result in ridiculousness such as the $1.92 million damages that the jury (based on the statutory damages) slapped on Jammie Thomas. The judge in that case <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/judge-slashes-monstrous-jammie-thomas-p2p-award-by-35x.ars">called the damage award</a> "monstrous and shocking" and said that veered into "the realm of gross injustice."</li>
<li>The reasons against an optical disc law are given above. Quick recap: it is a) unnecessary and b) harmful.</li>
<li>India has not signed the WCT and the WPPT. Indian law satisfies all our international obligations. Thus enacting amendments consistent with the WCT and the WPPT is not required.</li>
<li>Camcording of a film is in any case a violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, and one would be hard-pressed to find a single theatre that allows for / does not prohibit camcorders. Given this, the reason for an additional law is, quite frankly, puzzling. At any rate, IIPA in its submission does not go into such nuances.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Further conclusions</h2>
<p><a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-special-301-report-and-not-so.html">Shamnad Basheer</a>, an IP professor at NUJS, offer the following as a response:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Dear USA,</p>
<p>India encourages you to mind your own business. We respect your sovereignty to frame IP laws according to your national priorities and suggest that you show us the same courtesy. If your grouse is that we haven't complied with TRIPS, please feel free to take us to the WTO dispute panel. Our guess is that panel members familiar with the English language will ultimately inform you that section 3(d) is perfectly compatible with TRIPS. And that Article 39.3 does not mandate pharmaceutical data exclusivity, as you suggest!
More importantly, at that point, we might even think of hauling you up before the very same body for rampant violations, including your refusal to grant TRIPS mandated copyright protection to our record companies, despite a WTO ruling (Irish music case) against you.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>India."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Basheer's suggestion seems to be in line with that Michael Geist who believes that other countries should join Canada and Israel in openly refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Special 301 Reports because they lack ['reliable and objective analysis'][geist-reliable]. And that thought serves as a good coda.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentConsumer RightsAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPiracyAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsData ProtectionFLOSSTechnological Protection MeasuresPublications2011-10-03T05:37:27ZBlog EntryTechnological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment
<b>In this post Pranesh Prakash conducts a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which deals with the stuff that enables 'Digital Rights/Restrictions Management', i.e., Technological Protection Measures. He notes that while the provision avoids some mistakes of the American law, it still poses grave problems to consumers, and that there are many uncertainties in it still.</b>
<p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/technological/faq03.html">Technological Protection Measures</a> are sought to be introduced in India via the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. This should be quite alarming for consumers for reasons that will be explained in a separate blog post on TPMs that will follow shortly.</p>
<p>In this post, I will restrict myself to a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Bill, which talks of "protection of technological measures". (Section 65B, which talks of Right Management Information will, similarly, be tackled in a later blog post.)</p>
<p>First off, this provision is quite unnecessary. There has been no public demand in India for TPMs to be introduced, and the pressure has come mostly from the United States in the form of the annual "Special 301" report prepared by the United States Trade Representative with input coming (often copied verbatim) from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. India is not a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) which requires technological protection measures be safeguarded by law. That provision, interestingly, was pushed for by the United States in 1996 when even it did not give legal sanctity to TPMs via its copyright law (which was amended in 2000 by citing the need to comply with the WCT).</p>
<p>TPMs have been roundly criticised, have been shown to be harmful for consumers, creators, and publishers, and there is also evidence that TPMs do not really decrease copyright infringement (but instead, quite perversely through unintended consequences, end up increasing it). Why then would India wish to introduce it?</p>
<p>Leaving that question aside for now, what does the proposed law itself say?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>65A. Protection of Technological Measures </p>
<p> (1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.</p>
<p> (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:</p>
<p> (a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:</p>
<p> Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or</p>
<p> (b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or</p>
<p> (c) conducting any lawful investigation; or</p>
<p> (d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or</p>
<p> (e) operator; or [<em>sic</em>]</p>
<p> (f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or</p>
<p> (g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.</p>
</blockquote>
<h1>Implications: The Good Part</h1>
<p>This provision clearly takes care of two of the major problems with the way TPMs have been implemented by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>In s.65A(1) it aligns the protection offered by TPMs to that offered by copyright law itself (since it has to be "applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act"). Thus, presumably, TPMs could not be used to restrict <em>access</em>, only to restrict copying, communication to the public, and that gamut of rights.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>In s.65A(1) and 65A(2) it aligns the exceptions granted by copyright law with the exceptions to the TPM provision. Section 65A(1) states that the act of circumvention has to be done "with the intention of infringing ... rights", and s.52(1) clearly states that those exceptions cannot be regarded as infringement of copyright. And s.65A(2)(a) states that circumventing for "a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act" will be allowed.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>A third important difference from the DMCA is that</p>
<ul>
<li>It does not criminalise the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools (including code, devices, etc.). (More on this below.)</li>
</ul>
<h1>Implications: The Bad Part</h1>
<p>This provision, despite the seeming fair-handed manner in which it has been drafted, still fails to maintain the balance that copyright seeks to promote:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>TPM-placers (presumably, just copyright holders, because of point 1. above) have been given the ability to restrict the activities of consumers, but they have not been given any corresponding duties. Thus, copyright holders do not have to do anything to ensure that the Film & Telivision Institute of India professor who wishes to use a video clip from a Blu-Ray disc can actually do so. Or that the blind student who wishes to circumvent TPMs because she has no other way of making it work with her screen reader is actually enabled to take advantage of the leeway the law seeks to provide her through s.52(1)(a) (s.52(1)(zb) is another matter!). Thus, while there are many such exceptions that the law allows for, the technological locks themselves prevent the use of those exceptions. Another way of putting that would be to say:</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The Bill presumes that every one has access to all circumvention technology. This is simply not true. In fact, Spanish law (in <a href="http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l3t5.html">Article 161 of their law</a>) expressly requires that copyright holders facilitate access to works protected by TPM to beneficiaries of limitations of copyright. Thus, copyright holders who employ TPMs should be required to:</p>
<ul>
<li>tell their customers how they can be contacted if the customer wishes to circumvent the TPM for a legitimate purpose</li>
<li>upon being contacted, aid their customer in making use of their rights / the exceptions and limitations in copyright law</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<p>How seriously can you take a Bill that has been introduced in Parliament that includes a provision that states: "Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from operator; or" (as s.65A(2)(e), read in its entirety, does)?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h1>Uncertainties</h1>
<p>As mentioned above, the provisions are not all that clear regarding manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools. Thus, the proviso to s.65A(2)(a) deserves a closer reading. What is clear is that there are no penalties mentioned for manufacture or dissemination of TPMs, and that only those who <em>circumvent</em> are penalised in 65A(1), and not those who produce the circumvention devices. However:</p>
<h2>On "shall maintain" and penalties</h2>
<p>In the proviso to s.65B(2)(a), there is an imperative ("shall maintain") requiring "any person facilitating circumvention" to keep records. It
is unclear what the implications of not maintaining such records are.</p>
<p>The obvious one is that the exemption contained in s.65(1)(a) will not apply if one were facilitated without the facilitator keeping records. Thus, under this interpretation, there is no independent legal (albeit penalty-less) obligation on facilitators. This interpretation runs into
the problem that if this was the intention, then the drafters would have written "Provided that any person facilitating circumvention ... for
such a purpose <em>maintain</em>/<em>maintained</em> a complete record ...". Instead, <em>shall maintain</em> is used, and an independent legal obligation seems,
thus, to be implied. But can a proviso create an independent legal obligation? And is there any way a penalty could <em>possibly</em> be attached
to violation of this proviso despite it not coming within 65A(1)?</p>
<h2>On "facilitating" and remoteness</h2>
<p>The next question is who all can be said to "facilitate", and how remote can the connection be? Is the coder who broke the circumvention a
facilitator? The distributor/trafficker? The website which provided you the software? Or is it (as is more likely) a more direct "the friend who sat at your computer and installed the circumvention software" / "the technician who unlocked your DVD player for you while installing it in your house"?</p>
<p>While such a record-keeping requirement is observable by people those who very directly help you (the last two examples above), it would be more difficult to do so the further up you get on the chain of remoteness. Importantly, such record-keeping is absolutely not possible in decentralized distribution models (such as those employed by most free/open source software), and could seriously harm fair and legitimate circumvention.</p>
<h1>More uncertainties</h1>
<p>It is slightly unclear which exception the bypassing of Sony's dangerous "Rootkit" copy protection technology would fall under if I wish to get rid of it simply because it makes my computer vulnerable to malicious attacks (and not to exercise one of the exceptions under s.52(1)). Will such circumvention come under s.65A(2)(a)? Because it does not quite fall under any of the others, including s.65(2)(b) or (f).</p>
<h2>On "purpose" as a criterion in 65A(2)(a)</h2>
<p>A last point, which is somewhat of an aside is that 65A(2)(a) states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There's something curious about the wording, since the Copyright Act generally does not prohibit any acts based on purposes (i.e., the prohibitions by ss.14 r/w s.51 are not based on <em>why</em> someone reproduces, etc., but on the act of reproduction). In fact, it <em>allows</em> acts based on purposes
(via s.52(1)). The correct way of reading 65A(2)(a) might then be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose expressly allowed by this Act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But that might make it slightly redundant as s.65A(1) covers that by having the requirement of the circumvention being done "with the intention of infringing such right" (since the s.52(1) exceptions are clearly stated as not being infringements of the rights granted under the Act).</p>
<h1>Conclusion</h1>
<p>It would be interesting to note how leading copyright lawyers understand this provision, and we will be tracking such opinions. But it is clear that TPMs, as a private, non-human enforcement of copyright law, are harmful and that we should not introduce them in India. And we should be especially wary of doing so without introducing additional safeguards, such as duties on copyright holder to aid access to TPM'ed works for legitimate purposes, and remove burdensome record-keeping provisions.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsFLOSSTechnological Protection MeasuresPublications2012-05-17T16:51:38ZBlog EntryCI IP Watch List 2009 - India Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/pranesh/IP%20Watch%20List%20-%20India%20Report.pdf
<b>The India Report of the Consumers International IP Watch List 2009, detailing ways in which Indian copyright laws are beneficial and harmful for creators and consumers.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/pranesh/IP%20Watch%20List%20-%20India%20Report.pdf'>http://editors.cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/pranesh/IP%20Watch%20List%20-%20India%20Report.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2009-12-09T10:09:52ZFile