The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 25.
Problems 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 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 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 EntryThomas 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 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 EntryGovt for Legalising Parallel Import of Copyright Works; Publishers Oppose
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work
<b>Section 2(m) legalises the parallel imports of books and other copyrighted material into India and was part of the initial Copyright Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament of India in 2010. </b>
<p>Section 2(m) reads as below:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>"[P]rovided 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 into India shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy."</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, the government did a sudden volte face owing to pressure from publisher lobbies and deleted it from the latest version of the Bill. The provision would have helped students gain access to the latest affordable versions of text books from around the world.</p>
<p>When the Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for review, the said Committee strongly supported the introduction of section 2(m) and stated as below:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>"that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books."</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>"Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. 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. The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to the government to ensure that the <strong>purpose for which the amendment is proposed i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of</strong>."</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="pullquote"><span class="Apple-style-span">Despite the Standing Committees support, it is curious as to why the government dropped this provision, particularly when it would have tremendously helped a number of students gain access to latest low priced editions of text books from around the world. It ought not to have succumbed to the pressures of the publishing lobby.</span></div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Empirical studies done on this count clearly demonstrate that publishers only introduce old versions of books in India. The latest versions have to be imported, and they are very expensive, often times costing more than what they cost in the US and EU. See the Economic Times article documenting this empirical study <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/policy/govt-for-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-works-publishers-oppose/articleshow/7723572.cms">here</a>.</p>
<p>Further, an easy right of import enables any third party to import books which could also then be made available in accessible formats to the visually impaired. </p>
<p class="callout">Download the Economic Times article by Shamnad Basheer <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import" class="internal-link" title="Govt for legalising parallel import of copyright works; publishers oppose">here</a>. [PDF, 470 Kb]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work</a>
</p>
No publisherShamnad BasheerIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-30T10:19:35ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment Bill in Parliament
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament
<b>The Copyright Amendment Bill is expected to be presented in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Human Resource and Development, Kapil Sibal today afternoon. The much awaited Bill (since it has been in the offing since 2006) has undergone significant changes since its initial appearance.</b>
<p>Given below is a very quick first cut highlight of the Bill from a public interest perspective. A more detailed analysis will follow after the session discussions. </p>
<ul><li>Parallel imports: The parallel imports clause which had been put in as sec 2(m) has now been dropped from the present draft. This is a big setback because educational institutions, libraries and archives, second hand book, etc., were looking to this provision to bring down the prices and hasten the availability of books. This also affects persons with disabilities since they will be unable to import books in accessible formats.</li><li>Persons with disabilities: There are two provisions relating to persons with disabilities which have been introduced. Section 52 (1) (zb) relates to the conversion, reproduction, issues of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, provided that these activities are meant to enable access to persons with disabilities and sufficient safeguards are taken to ensure that these materials do not enter the mainstream market. This section in a sense is broader and more encompassing than some provisions found in other countries, which relate exclusively to the blind or visually impaired. This section would adequately cover persons with other disabilities who cannot read print. A new section 31B also provides for compulsory licensing for profit entities wishing to convert and distribute works in accessible formats, provided that they are primarily working for persons with disabilities and are registered under sec 12A of the Income Tax Act or under chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.</li><li>Many exceptions under 52 (1) (i) relating to fair dealing have been extended to all works except computer programmes. New sections 52 (1) (b) and (c) protect transient and incidental storage from being classified as infringing copies, which offers protection to entities such as online intermediaries. </li><li>The scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’. Three new sections 31 B, 31C and 31 D have been introduced. Section 31 B has already been described in the paragraph on persons with disabilities. Section 31 C lays down strict measures relating to statutory licensing in case of cover version, being a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work. Section 31 D relates to statutory licenses for broadcasting organizations wishing to broadcast a literary or musical work or sound recording.</li><li>Non commercial public libraries can now store electronic copies of any non digital works they own (52(n)).</li><li>The new Bill introduces Technological protection measures (65A and 65B) and makes circumvention and distribution of works in which rights managements systems have been removed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto two years as well as fine. In addition the copyright owner can also avail of civil remedies. As such India is not really required to have these provisions in the copyright legislation since we are not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and such provisions will hamper consumer interests. </li><li>Terms of copyright have been increased significantly without reason, thus preventing works from falling into the public domain. For instance, the term of photographs has been increased from 60 years to life of the photographer plus 60 years. This is far in excess of the minimum term stipulated by international treaties. </li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-30T09:26:44ZBlog EntryStatement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.</p>
<p>We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<h3>Broadcasters Already Protected Online<br /></h3>
<p>Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.</p>
<p>Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.</p>
<p>The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.</p>
<p>Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.</p>
<h3>Support Countries' Concerns</h3>
<p>We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Chair.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-11-30T06:55:43ZBlog EntryComment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society. First, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election.<br /><br />And I would like to congratulate Prof. Sirenelli on his excellent presentation.<br /><br />I would like to flag a few points, though:</p>
<ol><li>One of the benefits of normal laws, as opposed to the soft/plastic laws, which he champions, is that normal laws are bound by procedures established by law, due process requirements, and principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the soft/plastic laws, which in essence are private agreements, are not.</li><li>The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion made it clear in his report to the UN Human Rights Council that the Internet is now an intergral part of citizens exercising their right of freedom of speech under national constitutions and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That report highlights that many initiatives on copyright infringement, including that of the French government with HADOPI and the UK, actually contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights</li><li>The right of privacy is also flagged by many as something that will have to be compromised if such private enforcement of copyright is encouraged.<br /></li></ol>
<p>I'd like to know Prof. Sirinelli's views on these three issues: due process, right of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsPiracyCensorshipWIPO2011-12-01T11:59:45ZBlog EntryCIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that some of the proposals on future work could be worded better to reflect their true meaning. For instance, one of the proposal calls for control of the problem of "parallel import". However, "parallel importation" is actually allowed by both the TRIPS Agreement and by various other instruments such as the Berne Convention? Indeed, calling “parallel import” a problem is like calling "exceptions and limitations" a problem. This is a view that has been firmly rejected here at WIPO, especially post the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda. This, quite obviously, could not have been the intention of the proposal framers.</p>
<p>Further, the link between some of the proposals and the Development Agenda could be made clearer. It has been established that the Development Agenda is not just something for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to consider, but for all committees to make an integral part of their work.</p>
<p>I would also like to underscore the importance of evidence-based policy-making.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would like to mention that a report has already been commissioned by WIPO on intermediary liability, which was written by Prof. Lilian Edwards and was released in a side-event during SCCR 22, in June 2011.</p>
<p>If the ACE is going ahead with a study or an event, I would suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, who in his report to the UN Human Rights Council dealt in some depth with intermediary liability, be involved or invited.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsWIPO2011-12-01T15:30:38ZBlog EntryOf Jesters, Clowns and Pranksters: YouTube and the Condition of Collaborative Authorship
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters
<b>The idea of a single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube, writes Nishant Shah in this peer reviewed essay published in the Journal of Moving Images, Number 8, December 2009.</b>
<div>
<p>The idea of the single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube. The recent state of controversies around YouTube, has foregrounded the question of authorship in collaborative conditions. Questions of who owns the particular videos and what is the role that the large communities of authorship play have not been resolved as the debaters have concentrated only on single videos and singular notions of authorship, dismissing the (this paper proposes) collaborators as jesters, clowns and pranksters, without recognizing their contribution to the videos.</p>
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>I shall begin by misquoting and possibly violating copyright regimes by invoking Dostoyevsky, to say that all dissimilar technologies are the same in their own way, but all similar technologies are uniquely different. Every technological innovation, but particularly innovations affecting authorship and the role of the author, brings with it a new set of anxieties and concerns. David Stewart, in his engrossing book on the history of technology and communication, for example, talks about how in the early years of postal service there were debates around who was the author of the mail that was being delivered. Through a particularly fascinating case that looked at a Lord in London holding the post office responsible for some objectionable mail delivered to his daughter, Stewart traces the origins of techno-neutrality and regulation to look upon technology as merely a bearer of knowledge – in this case, the mail – and the original author, this primordial figure that sits and writes or shoots or sings, as the only person upon whom the responsibility and hence also the credit can be placed.</p>
<p>Mark Joffe, in his movie The Man Who Sued God, introduces us to the case of Steve Myers, an ex-lawyer in Australia, who sues God because his boat is struck by lightning and his insurance company refuses to pay, claiming it to be an act of God. By claiming to be God’s representatives on Earth, the Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues are held to be the liable party, putting them in the difficult position of either having to pay out large sums of money, or prove that God does not exist. But more than anything else, it is the attribution of responsibility to one particular, identifiable entity that lies at the centre of the movie. Even in the pre-Internet world, one of the biggest sources of anxieties has been determining authorship and putting into place a knowledge apparatus that reinforces the need for such a condition. The question of authorship, while it surfaces in a number of contexts – copyright infringements, intellectual property right regimes, plagiarism, crediting and referencing industries, etc – is perhaps most interestingly manifest on video sharing social networking sites like YouTube and Myspace.</p>
<p>Rather than addressing what constitutes digital cinema or the future of celluloid, I would instead like to locate the emergence of the idea of authorship, through a historical examination of an ‘old media’. I will be looking at the early history of the book and the print revolution to argue that the condition of authorship that one presumes for the book, and subsequently, through a different trajectory, for cinema, is not something that was inherent to it; and in fact the early history of the book is filled with conflicts around the question of how you could attribute the book as an artefact to one individual author. By examining the conditions that enabled the establishment of the book as a stable object that can be linked to the author, I hope to return us to a different way of thinking about Youtube videos and the debates on authorship that surround it.</p>
<h3>YouTube and the question of authorship</h3>
<p>The world of YouTube stakeholders can roughly be divided into two camps: People who swear by it and people who swear at it. The camp has arisen mainly because of differences of opinions on who owns a YouTube video and the content therein. The critics of YouTube – largely recording companies and movie studios and distributors – argue that platforms like YouTube are killing their businesses, emptying their coffers, and are a direct threat to the sacred cow of all cultural productions – the livelihood and the integrity of the creative artist. They make claims that a site like YouTube infringes the copyright regimes because videos get published by somebody who has ripped it from another source, and often does no crediting. Also, that the sales of the music or the movies or television serials go down because of such activities.</p>
<p>One of the most recent infamous example that can be cited is the case of the Let’s Go Crazy Dancing video case, were the world literally went crazy. In early February 2007, Stephanie Lenz’s 13-month-old son started dancing. Pushing a walker across her kitchen floor, Holden Lenz started moving to the distinctive beat of a song by Prince, “Let’s Go Crazy.” <a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> Lenz wanted her mother to see the film so she did what any citizen of the 21st century would do: She uploaded the file to YouTube and sent her relatives and friends the link. They watched the video scores of times. It was a perfect YouTube moment: a community of laughs around a homemade video, readily shared with anyone who wanted to watch.</p>
<p>Sometime over the next four months, however, someone from Universal Music Group also watched Holden dance. Universal manages the copyrights of Prince. It fired off a letter to YouTube demanding that it remove the unauthorized “performance” of Prince’s music. YouTube, to avoid liability itself, complied. YouTube sent Lenz a notice that it was removing her video. She wondered, “Why?” What had she done wrong? Her questions reached the Electronic Frontier Foundation and then started the battle, where on Lenz’s behalf, the EFF lawyers sent a ‘counter-notice’ to YouTube, that no rights of Universal were violated by Holden’s dancing video. Lenz as the author of the video was concentrating on her son’s dancing and that the presence of Prince’s song was negligible and definitely fair use. Yet Universal’s lawyers insist to this day that sharing this home movie is wilful copyright infringement under the laws of the United States. On their view of the law, she is liable to a fine of up to $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of Holden dancing. They specifically state that Lenz is not the ‘original’ artist who made the music and thus she is appropriating authorship and violating the rights of the artist – Prince, to be identified as the creator of the song. The notice also informed her that they were unhappy with the ‘clowning’ around of Prince’s music which might offend his fan-base.</p>
<p>The questions which come to the fore are very obvious and not new to the history of legal debates on cinema: What is the content of the video? Who is the author of the video? Who watches the video? What are the intentions of the video? The supporters of the ‘Free as in Beer’ access movements and also of YouTube clearly point out the farcical condition of this battle. As Lawrence Lessig very eloquently points out in his essay on the ‘Defence of Piracy’.</p>
<p>How is it that sensible people, people no doubt educated at some of the best universities and law schools in the country, would come to think it a sane use of corporate resources to threaten the mother of a dancing 13-month-old? What is it that allows these lawyers and executives to take a case like this seriously, to believe there’s some important social or corporate reason to deploy the federal scheme of regulation called copyright to stop the spread of these images and music? “Let’s Go Crazy” indeed!<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<p>In another instance, which is a competition on YouTube between two videos to reach the coveted “first video to be seen 1 million times” status, brings again these question of the author and the pranksters. Avril Lavigne fans, on the release of her recent Single ‘Girlfriend’, started campaigning to make that video the first to be viewed 1 million times on YouTube. They put it in direct competition with the then most viewed video – ‘History of Dance’ – and started activities that violated the Terms of Service for YouTube. They embedded the videos in many sites and started websites which played the videos automatically. They even created a website which auto reloaded the video every fifteen minutes and encouraged fans to keep the website opened, abusing the power of broad band, while they are browsing, surfing, or even sleeping. The efforts paid off and Avril Lavigne’s ‘Girlfriend’, in July 2008, became the first video to be watched 1 million times in the history of YouTube. One would have thought that such publicity is what a distributor’s wet dreams are made of. However, just after the video reached the 1 million mark and entered the heights of popularity, YouTube received a notice from Times Warner, to remove the video because it was a copyright violation. They also demanded that all the other compilations and samplings which included the song be removed from YouTube. The supporters of the move, condemned the Lavigne fans as ‘pranksters’ or ‘jesters’ who were in for the cheap publicity, because they were not really creators of the video or the authors. In a startling Op-Ed titled ‘How Avril Lavigne Killed YouTube’ in the New York Times, a spokesperson for Times Warner suggested.</p>
<p>This is not respectable fan behaviour. A fan is somebody who loves and worships the author and not somebody who pretends to be the author. The avrilelavignebandaid group just turned out to be a group of pirates who passed off Lavigne’s video as their own and went on to promote it, forgetting the fact that they were using a democratic platform like YouTube for activities which can only be called theft!</p>
<p>Predictably, the debate on the question of authorship takes place in a rather somber tone, whether it is the zealous claims of monopoly of production and authorship that the established industries claim for themselves, or the passionate defenses of the YouTubeians. What remains constant through the entire process is the fact that the idea of a singular, identifiable author remains stable and unchallenged. I would like to take a slightly different track here, and try and see how we can think the question of the “production of the author” by revisiting the history of the book and of early print culture, and look at the manner in which the idea of the author emerges.</p>
<p>There is often an unstated assumption about the book as authored by a single person and authorship is spoken of in a value-neutral and ahistorical manner. It would be useful to situate the condition of authorship within a historical moment, where authorship is not seen to be an apriori condition but a constructed one, and one whose history is located in specific technological changes. The technology of print and paper brought about a set of questions around the question of authorship, and in the same way, the domain of Internet video sharing and collaborative authorship raises a set of questions and concerns.</p>
<h3>The construction of author/ity</h3>
<p>In many ways, the debate on authorship and knowledge is similar to the older debate in philosophy between body and self. Critics of self, such as Foucault, demonstrate that the notion of the self has often stemmed from very particular experiences in the Christian West, which were then posited as universal experiences. However, doing away with the notion of the self does not do away with the question of the body. In fact, Foucault goes on to explore the technologies of the self and how it informs our understanding of the body. In a similar vein, while the proponents of the Web 2.0 revolution (sometimes unknown to themselves, echoing debates that happened in print about a 100 years ago) announce either the death of the author or the availability of open licensing, fail to recognize that the question of authorship (and hence authority) are rooted both in particular practices as well as in technological forms. Hence the debates take familiar shapes: author versus pirate, digital versus celluloid, collaborative versus single author, etc.</p>
<p>It is especially when posing the question of authorship in absolute terms that the cultural producers/consumers on YouTube get reduced to pranksters, jesters or clowns. The debate also excludes the temporal framework of the debate and forget that the Internet is still a work in progress. Even though an Internet year is akin to seven pre-digital years, and time is now experienced in accelerated modes, it is necessary to realize that the domain of collaborative online sharing and production of videos is a relatively new one.</p>
<p>It may be more useful to think of the post-celluloid world as an extremely ambiguous and fluid period, undoubtedly marked by immense possibilities, but we have not reached any settled phase yet. So if we are to make comparisons, then it is more useful to compare the contemporary period with another moment in history, and the emergence of a cultural form other than cinema, which was marked by an equal fluidity. It is here that I go to the early history of print culture or ‘print in the making’<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a> and the conflicts over the question of authorship, to demonstrate that the condition of authorship question is an important one, but it is not a question that is unique to YouTube or the Internet. And an examination of the conditions under which authorship came to be established may help us get over our anxieties about authorship, and better understand it with certain lightness – through pranks, jests and clowning around.</p>
<h3>What’s in a name? – The author and the book</h3>
<p>For us to understand the idea of print in the making, we need to understand some of the practices that preceded the idea of print. They also enable us to understand the specific nature of the disputes around the question of authorship, and more importantly rethink disputes over authorship as productive disputes. Lawrence Liang in his ‘A brief history of the Internet in 13th and 14th Century’ takes up the example of Chaucer, the father of English poetry. He demonstrates, through different readings, “how the structure and the form of the Canterbury Tales reflects, interestingly, the question of approaches to the idea of authorship as well as the conditions of the production of the Canterbury Tales itself.” Liang looks at the manuscript cultures and the ways in which authorship and rights were understood.</p>
<p>Borrowing from Mark Rose, Liang shows how, in the Middle Ages, the owner of a manuscript was understood to possess the right to grant permission to copy it, and this was a right that could be exploited, as it was, for example, by those monasteries that regularly charged a fee for permission to copy one of their books. This was somewhat similar to copyright royalty with the crucial difference that the book-owner’s property was not a right in the text as such but in the manuscript as a physical object made of ink and parchment. The value provided by the monastery and the reason for their charging for their copy fee did not emerge just from the existence of the copy alone, but also from the fact that each monastery also had their unique elements in the form of the annotations, the commentary, corrections, which only the particular monastery’s copy might contain. The very act of copying and possession made you the author of that text and also the owner of the book.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> The author was not only the reclusive solitary figure that coins the first word but the various scribes, writers, annotators and litterateurs who offered changes, as well as helped in distribution and copying.<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a></p>
<p>So, while the popular account of preprint cultures is of slavish copying by scribes, the story turns out to be slightly more complicated. Acting as annotators, compilers, and correctors, medieval book owners and scribes actively shaped the texts they read. For example, 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. And these were all legitimate, acceptable and engaged forms of authorship. While this activity of average or amateur readers differs in scale and quality from Chaucer’s work, it opens us to new questions of the relationship between author, text, and reader in the Middle Ages, and also what it may mean to understand contemporary practices of knowledge and cultural creation.</p>
<p>Scribes and readers responded to Chaucer, Langland, and others, not by slavishly copying, canonizing, or passively receiving their texts, but by reworking them as creative readers. In doing so, they continue and contribute to the great layers of intertextual conversation that made the work of these now canonical authors relevant, interesting, and, fundamentally, possible. Similar debates surround the attribution of authorship to William Shakespeare for his work. Literary historians have periodically made claims that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the then court poet Ben Jonson, that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Christopher Marlowe, who is considered to be his arch enemy, that Shakespeare’s plays were written by another man named Shakespeare, and not the Shakespeare we think we know. At the basis of these arguments was the idea that the plays were designed not to be written but be performed and that in the lively rendering of the play, between different actors and producers, the original text changed. Interestingly, the Shakespearean technique of ‘asides’ and ‘taking the audience into confidence’ was actually a way of inviting the audience to not only receive the story but to read it differently, and edit it with their response to it.</p>
<p>This invitation was accepted by late Elizabethans who took great pleasure in seeing the same play multiple times to see how it has changed in the performance. Moreover, as multiple copies of the same manuscript started appearing in the living public, along with the actors and the producers, the readers also took great pleasure in creating copies of the takes that drastically cut, expand, edit and otherwise Shakespeare’s plays.<a href="#fn6" name="fr1">[6]</a></p>
<p>This activity goes beyond the mechanics of audience reception and looks at the plays as a collaborative effort which gets glossed over in the making of the authoritative folios which looked upon all such interventions as anomalies to the text. Before the fixity of text, there was a possibility to think of the text not as a finished product but a work in progress that elicits new responses, meanings and forms through its engagement with the audience. Moreover, the audience, in their rights of consumption, also seemed to possess the right to edit, change and circulate the text. They were the original jesters, pranksters and clowns, who, in their playful response to the text, constructed it to respond to their contexts and traditions. This sounds a lot like the debates we are experiencing on YouTube videos where the readers respond in kind to the poetics of reading and composing within which the YouTube videos operate.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Thus rather than speaking about authorship as something that is intrinsic to either a particular mode of authorship or intrinsic to any technological form, it might be more useful instead to consider the variety of knowledge apparatuses which come into play to establish its authority. In the case for the history of the book, it was clear that the establishment of authorship depended on the arrangements, classifications and kinds of assemblage that make it possible, maintain it as well as critique it. The conventions, for instance, by which the title and author of a work are identified play very specific functions in preparing for knowledge, as do the several kinds of documentation, attribution, citation and copyright.</p>
<p>The preconditions for authorship cannot easily be made into the object that we identify as author. It is a matter of making evident (making known) the structures of authorship which emerge in ways that provide definitive proof of the imperfectability and ambiguity of the authorial position. To speak of the productive nature of conflicts over authorship is then to recognize that any author – either exalted or dismissed - is constructed in a condition of potential collaboration and revision. The question thus centres on how we use the notion of authorship, how we bring it to light and mobilize it today to understand cultural forms differently. The way the authorship debates take place, there is almost a theological devotion to an exalted idea of author, without a consideration of the apparatus that was established to construct that condition.</p>
<p>The point is not to do away with the question of the author or construct another catch-all retainer that accepts all forms of engagement as authorship, but to recognize it not as something that is intrinsic or a given but something that is always transient, and to locate it, in the case of digital cinema, within specific practices and technologies. To return to the question of YouTube videos and the future of celluloid image; we are now faced with new questions about authorship and the very form that the digital cinema embodies: If the image itself is no longer made to bear the burden of meaning and intention, can we locate new forms of authorship – sometimes in incidental intertextuality, sometimes in creating conditions (as is in the case of DVDs or digital video sharing sites) narratives, meanings, interpretations and paraphernalia that simultaneously re-emphasize the sacredness of the image while deconstructing the apparatus that establishes a fixity of authorship over that image? Can we look at not only novel forms of interaction and consumption of the celluloid image but at a playful engagement with the image to create a galaxy of responses – sometimes as reciprocal videos, often through comments, embedding mechanisms, using the video not as an object unto itself but as a form of complex referencing and citation to a larger community of artists and authors?</p>
<p>The future of celluloid, especially if we are locating it in the realm of the Digital Moving Objects of Web 2.0 technologies, is going to have debates which were relevant also to the making of the book. However, this is not to say that the challenges faced and the problematic that emerge are redundant. Indeed, the celluloid frame and its overpowering capacity to incorporate technology, content, response and remixes, to produce the spectacle of watching, posit certain challenges to the Web 2.0 celebrations while simultaneously expanding its own scope of production. YouTube debates around infantile abuse of video/cinema technologies to make dancing babies and furry animals popular need to be read as symptomatic of a much larger question of authorship, authority and the conditions of cultural production rather than signalling the death of celluloid. An escape from the authority question also allows for an escape from the celluloid-digital binary and posits a more fruitful engagement in looking at how celluloid technologies (and the constellation of factors therewith) inform our understanding and analysis of the DMIs that are slowly gaining popularity.</p>
<p>This research was originally published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.jmionline.org/jmi8_4.htm">Journal of Moving Images</a>.</p>
<p>See the research paper in <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.academia.edu/NishantShah/Papers">Academia.edu</a>.</p>
<hr />
</div>
<h3>References</h3>
<div>
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].Holden Lenz’s YouTube debut, that probably made him the most popular baby on the Internet is still available for viewing at <<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/internet-governance/Holden%20Lenz%E2%80%99s%20YouTube%20debut,%20that%20probably%20made%20him%20the%20most%20popular%20baby%20on%20the%20Internet%20is%20still%20available%20for%20viewing%20at%20%3Chttp:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ%3E%20retrieved%2012:14%20a.m.%2022nd%20January%202010." class="external-link">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ</a>> retrieved 12:14 a.m. 22nd January 2010.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>].The essay is available for open access at <<a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html</a>></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>].I am grateful to Lawrence Liang for this methodological framework where he looks at the emergence of Wikipedia and the pre-print cultures, to look at the similarities and differences between the two. “A Brief History of the Internet in the 13th and 14th Century”. Forthcoming 2010.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>].See Alberto Manguel’s A History of Reading. 1990. New York: Penguin Books.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>].Daniel Wolf, in Reading History in Early Modern England. 2005. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, explains in great detail how the reader as well as the author were imagined, constructed and recognized in the early days of print.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>].See Molly Abel Travis’s comprehensive account of the debates in Construction of Readers in the Twentieth Century. 1998. Illinois, Chicago: Southern Illinois University Press.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/jesters-clowns-pranksters</a>
</p>
No publishernishantIntellectual Property RightsCopyright2012-12-14T10:24:05ZBlog EntryCIS Hosts Scanned Version of George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes
<b>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J), the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant is taking place on December 1, 2011. Amateur scanning of books often raises a lot of questions, around the issue of copyright. For this V/J13 is scanning George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes. The essay is in public domain in Russia, India and South Africa, but not in Europe and America due to copyright issues. CIS is hosting the scanned pages of the essay in public domain.</b>
<p>During the morning session DIY-made book scanner and OCR-software will be used to transform the scans into text files and in the afternoon session the digital material generated in the morning will be remixed.<br /><br />The main sessions can be followed online at the home page of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.vj13.constantvzw.org/site/">VJ13</a></p>
<h3>About VJ13</h3>
<p>Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J) is the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant. Since 1997, Verbindingen/Jonctions combines high, low and no-tech strategies from utopian, contemporary, traditional and tribal cultures, free software, feminism and queer theories. V/J is an occasion to explore the space between thinking and doing, and the festival is always a mix of activities. It is an occasion to invite radio makers, artists, programmers, academics, Linux users, interface designers, urban explorers, performance artists, technicians, lawyers and others to experience each other’s practice, and to share their interests with a broad public of visitors.</p>
<p>V/J13 has been developed in collaboration with Le P’tit Ciné, Recyclart, Hacker Space Brussels (HSB), QO2, Renovas, Boutique de Quartier and Yves Poliart, Myriam Van Imschoot, Piet Zwart Institute: Networked Media.</p>
<p>Download the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes.zip" class="internal-link" title="Books vs Cigarettes">scanned version</a> (Zip files, 28091 kb)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/books-vs-cigarettes</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-12-01T13:31:39ZBlog EntryCIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired
<b>This was the statement read out by Pranesh Prakash at the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee for Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva, on Friday, July 20, 2012.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chairman.<br />
</p>
<p>I would like to associate CIS with the statements made by the WBU, eIFL, IFLA, KEI, ISOC, and CLA.</p>
<p>We NGOs been making statements at SCCR on this the topic of a treaty for the reading-disabled since 2009 now.</p>
<p>In this room there are a number of organizations that work with and for persons with disabilities which come here to Geneva, SCCR after SCCR. They do not come here to watch the enactment of an elaborate ritual, but to seek solutions for the very real knowledge drought that is being faced by the reading-disabled everywhere, and particularly in developing countries.</p>
<p>The way work on this treaty — or rather this binding-or-non-binding international instrument — has been stalled by some member states is a matter of shame. In India our Parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities, and those who are working for them, a strong yet simply-worded right to have equal access to copyrighted works as sighted persons.</p>
<p>An instrument that lays down detailed guidelines on rules and procedures to be followed by authorized entities will not work. An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work.<br />
</p>
<p>Importantly, an instrument that ignores realities of the world: that the vast majority of persons with visual impairment live in developing countries just will not work.</p>
<p>I implore the delegations here to keep up the constructive spirit I have seen most of them display in the past two days, and ensure that the 2012 General Assembly convenes a Diplomatic Conference on this topic.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2012-07-22T12:01:28ZBlog EntryCIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries and Archives
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives
<b>This was the statement delivered by Pranesh Prakash on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, Knowledge Ecology International, Conseil International des Archives, Library Copyright Alliance, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to commend this house for adopting SCCR/23/8 as a working document on the issue of exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. This issue is of paramount interest the world over, and particularly in developing countries. I would like to limit my oral intervention to three quick points, and will send a longer statement in via e-mail.</p>
<p>First, we feel that this committee should pay special attention to ensuring that digital works and online libraries and archives such as the Internet Archive, also receive the same protection as brick-and-mortar libraries.</p>
<p>Second, we are concerned that we have been seeing some delegations advancing a very narrow interpretation of the three-step test. Such a narrow interpretation is not supported by leading academics, nor by practices of member states. A narrow interpretation of the three-step test must be squarely rejected. In particular, I would like to associate CIS with the strong statements by IFLA and KEI to maintain flexibilities within exceptions and limitations, instead of overly prescriptive provisions encumbered by weighty procedures and specifications.</p>
<p>We have comments about parallel trade as well, drawing from our experience and research in India, and will send those in writing.</p>
<p>Libraries and archive enhance the value of the copyrighted works that they preserve and provide to the general public. They do not erode it. Exceptions and limitations that help them actually help copyright holders. The sooner copyright holders try not to muzzle libraries, especially when it comes to out-of-commerce works, electronic copies of works, and in developing countries, the better it will be for them, their commercial interests, as well as the global public interest.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightFair DealingsIntellectual Property RightsArchivesWIPO2012-07-25T10:54:38ZBlog EntrySuper Cassettes v. MySpace
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space
<b>The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Super Cassettes v. MySpace last July is worrying for a number of reasons. The court failed to appreciate the working of intermediaries online and disregard all pragmatic considerations involved. The consequences for free expression and particularly for file sharing by users of services online are especially unfavourable. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment<a href="#fn*" name="fr*">[*]</a>is extremely worrying since it holds MySpace liable for copyright infringement, <b>despite</b> it having shown that it did not know, and could not have known, about each instance of infringement; that it removed each instance of alleged infringement upon mere complaint; that it asked Super Cassettes to submit their songs to their song identification database and Super Cassettes didn't.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This, in essence, means, that all 'social media services' in which there is even a <b>potential</b> for copyright infringement (such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are now faced with a choice of either braving lawsuits for activities of their users that they have no control over — they can at best respond to takedown requests after the infringing material has already been put up — or to wind down their operations in India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Facts</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aside from social networking, MySpace facilitates the sharing of content between its users. This case concerns content (whose copyright vested in T-Series) was uploaded by users to MySpace’s website. It appears that tensions between MySpace and T-Series arose in 2007, when T-Series entered into talks with MySpace to grant it licenses in its copyrighted content, while MySpace asked instead that T-Series register with its rights management programme. Neither the license nor the registration came about, and the infringing material continued to be available on the MySpace website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specifically, T-Series alleged that cases for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51 (a) (ii) could be made out. Alleging that MySpace had infringed its copyrights and so affected its earnings in royalties, T-Series approached the Delhi High Court and filed a suit seeking injunctive relief and damages. In proceedings for interim relief while the suit was pending, the court granted an injunction, but, in an appeal by MySpace, added the qualification that the content would have to be taken down only on receipt of a specific catalogue of infringing works available on MySpace, rather than a general list of works in which T-Series held a copyright.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Defence</h2>
<p>While other arguments such as one around the jurisdiction of the court were also raised, the central issues are listed below:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Non-Specificity of Prayer<br />T-Series’ claim in the suit is for a blanket injunction on copyrighted content on the MySpace website. This imposes a clearly untenable, even impossible, burden for intermediaries to comply with.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge<br />MySpace argued that no liability could accrue to it on two counts. The first was that it had no actual or direct knowledge or role in the selection of the content, while the second was that no control was exercised, or was exercisable over the uploading of the content. Additionally, there was no possible means by which it could have identified the offending content and segregated it from lawful content, or monitored all of the content that it serves as a platform for.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediary status and Safe Harbour Protection<br />In relation to its status as an intermediary, MySpace raised several arguments. First, it argued that it had immunity under section 79 of the IT Act and under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (US DMCA). Another argument restated what is arguably the most basic tenet of intermediary liability that merely providing the platform by which infringement could occur cannot amount to infringement. In other words, the mere act of facilitating expression over internet does not amount to infringement. It then made reference to its terms of use and its institution of safeguards (in the form of a hash filter, a rights management tool and a system of take-down–stay-down), which it argued clearly reflect an intention to discourage or else address cases of infringement as they arise. MySpace also emphasized that a US DMCA compliant procedure was in place, although T-Series countered that the notice and take down system would not mitigate the infringement.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Relationship between MySpace and its Users<br />Taking from previous arguments about a lack of control and its status as an intermediary, MySpace argued that it was simply a licensee of users who uploaded content. The license is limited, in that MySpace is only allowed to alter user-generated content so as to make it viewable.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Outcomes</h2>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Infringement by Facilitation<br />The court concluded that infringement in terms of section 51 (a) (ii) had occurred in this case, since web space is a “place” in the terms required by the section and there were monetary gains in the form of ad revenue. The argument as to a lack of knowledge of infringement was also rejected on the ground that MySpace’s provision for safeguards against infringement clearly established a reason to believe that infringement will occur. Also referenced as evidence of knowledge, or at least a reason to believe infringement would occur, is the fact that MySpace modifies the format of the content before making it available on its website. It also tested for infringement by authorization in terms of section 14 read with section 51 (a) (i), but concluded that this did not arise here.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reading away section 79?<br />The court accepted the argument made by T-Series to the effect that sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act must be read together. Since section 79 would be overridden by section 81’s non-obstante, the effect would be that rights holders’ interests under the Copyright Act will erode intermediaries’ immunity under section 79. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Due Diligence<br />The court rejected the argument that the provision of due diligence or curative measures post-infringement would be sufficient. Specifically, the contention that the quantum of content being uploaded precludes close scrutiny, given the amount of labour that would be involved, was rejected. Content should not immediately be made available but must be subject to enquiries as to its title or to authentication of its proprietor before it is made available. In fact, it holds that, “there is no reason to axiomatically make each and every work available to the public solely because user has supplied them unless the defendants are so sure that it is not infringement.” (Paragraph 88).</li>
</ol> <ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is also an attempt to distinguish the Indian framework from the DMCA. While that law calls for post-infringement measures, it is argued that in India, on reading section 51 with section 55, the focus is on preventing infringement at the threshold. In response to the case that it would be impossible to do so, the court held that since the process here requires MySpace to modify the format of content uploaded to it to make it viewable, it will have a reasonable opportunity to test for infringement.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Analysis</h2>
<h3>Accounting for the Medium of Communication</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court’s analysis of the issues begins with a predictable emphasis on how the law of copyright would operate in the context of what is termed “internet computing”, peppered with trite statements about “the virtual world of internet” creating “complexit[ies]” for copyright law. The court appears to have entered into this discussion to establish that the notion of place in section 51 (a) (ii) should extend to “web space” but the statements made here only serve to contrast starkly against its subsequent failure to account for the peculiarities of form and function of intermediaries online. Had this line of argument been taken to its logical conclusion, after the character of the medium had been appreciated, the court’s final conclusion, that MySpace is liable for copyright infringement, would have been an impossible one to arrive at.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">And What of Free Speech?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it had argued before the court, intermediaries such as MySpace have no means by which to determine whether content is illegal (whether by reason of amounting to a violation of copyright, or otherwise) until content is uploaded. In other words, there is no existing mechanism by which this determination can be made at the threshold, before posting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court does not engage with the larger consequences for such a scheme of penalizing intermediaries. Censoring patent illegalities at the threshold, even if that were possible is one thing. The precedent that the court creates here is quite another. Given the general difficulty in conclusively establishing whether there is an infringement at all due to the complexities in applying the exceptions contained under section 52, it should not be for ordinary private or commercial interests such as intermediaries to sit in judgment over whether content is or is not published at all. In order to minimize its own liability, the likelihood of legitimate content being censored by the intermediary prior to posting is high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The consequences for civil liberties, and free speech and expression online in particular, appear to have been completely ignored in favour of rights holders’ commercial interests.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection</h3>
<blockquote class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">Even if every instance in question did amount to an infringement of copyright and a mechanism did exist allowing for removal of content, the effect of this judgment is to create a strict liability regime for intermediaries.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In other words, the court’s ruling will have the effect that courts’ determination of intermediaries’ liability will become detached from whether or not any fault can be attributed to them. MySpace did make this argument, even going as far as to suggest that doing so would impose strict liability on intermediaries. This would lead to an unprecedented and entirely unjustifiable result. In spite the fact that a given intermediary did apply all available means to prevent the publication of potentially infringing content, it would remain potentially liable for any illegality in the content, even though the illegality could not have been detected or addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What is perhaps even more worrying is that MySpace’s attempt at proactively and in good faith preventing copyright infringement through its terms of use and in addressing them through its post-infringement measures was explicitly cited as evidence of knowledge of and control over the uploading of copyrighted material, at the threshold rather than ex post. This creates perverse incentives for the intermediary to ignore infringement, to the detriment of rights holders, rather than act proactively to minimize its incidence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A final observation is that the court’s use, while pronouncing on relief, of the fact that MySpace makes a “copy” of the uploaded content by converting it into a format that could subsequently be hosted on the site and made accessible to show evidence of infringement and impose liability upon MySpace in itself is a glaring instance of the disingenuous reasoning the court employs throughout the case. There is another problem with the amended section 79, which waives immunity where the intermediary “modifies” material. That term is vague and overreaches, as it does here: altering formats to make content compatible with a given platform is not comparable to choices as to the content of speech or expression, but the reading is tenable under section 79 as it stands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The result of all of this is to dislodge the section 79 immunity that accrues to intermediaries and replace that with a presumption that they are liable, rather than not, for any illegality in the content that they passively host.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Effect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the judgment in the MySpace case, the Copyright Act has been amended to include some provisions that would bear on online service providers and on intermediaries’ liability for hosting infringing content, in particular. Section 52 (1) (b) of the amended Act provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public” would not infringe copyright. The other material provision is section 52 (1) (c) which provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy” will not constitute an infringement of copyright. The latter provision appears to institute a rather rudimentary, and very arguably incomplete, system of notice and takedown by way of a proviso. This requires intermediaries to takedown content on written complaint from copyright owners for a period of 21 days or until a competent rules on the matter whichever is sooner, and restore access to the content once that time period lapses, if there is no court order to sustain it beyond that period.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post does not account for the effect that these provisions could have had on the case, but it is already clear, from the sloppy drafting of section 52 (1) (c) and its proviso that they are not entirely salutary even at the outset. At any rate, there appears to be nothing that *<i>determinatively*</i> affects intermediaries’ secondary liability, <i>i.e.</i>, their liability for users’ infringing acts.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Disclosure: CIS is now a party to these proceedings at the Delhi High Court. This is a purely academic critique, and should not be seen to have any prejudice to the arguments we will make there.</i></p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr*" name="fn*">*</a>]. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. and Another, on 29 July, 2011, Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law. See<a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/quj6JW"> http://bit.ly/quj6JW</a>, last accessed on October 31, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space</a>
</p>
No publisherujwalaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeatured2012-10-31T10:27:36ZBlog Entry