The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 111 to 124.
Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii
<b>The following is a second post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine how these developers responded to a question on legal protection for their works.</b>
<p align="justify">Before one can identify the solution, one must first identify the problem. Yet, in order to understand the problem, we must first understand the individuals involved and the how the problem affects these individuals. We hope that the findings of this preliminary research initiative will provide sufficient groundwork to understand the problems that exist and the different ways of approaching them before determining the most suitable prospective option in changes at the policy level. In this case, the individuals under study are the key contributors to the mobile app space within India; and the problem, being those faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem.</p>
<p align="justify">Previously, we looked at responses that were given across these mobile app developers interviewed which revealed how they orient notions of intellectual property within their practice and own products, specifically. Findings that were made included deductions that the majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. Just as well, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.</p>
<h3><b>Question 2: “How is your IP protected?”</b></h3>
<p align="justify">Next, we asked how they go about protecting their intellectual property to get a feel of who is protecting their apps and who is not. In asking this question, we hoped to learn how they go about protecting their work via legal means. Across their various responses, we observed many patterns and contradictions which are conveyed here with reference to comments made across interviews. It is important to note, however, that no causal relations intend for be argued for, only suggested correlations.</p>
<p><b>How they responded</b></p>
<p align="justify">When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many of our conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum</div>
<p align="justify">Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.</p>
<p><b>Reasons for IPR protection</b></p>
<p align="justify">If a startup or SME is bootstrapped with very little cash flow to begin with, what would provoke or inspire one to pursue the process of acquiring patent protection then? Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, <a class="external-link" href="http://levitum.in/">Levitum</a>, considers “the concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context.” So if this is the case, why did so many developers interviewed express an interest in IPR?</p>
<p align="justify">For those who did express interest in acquiring IPR as protection for their mobile app products, most seemed to express an interest in proving ownership over their work, or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.</p>
<p align="justify">Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explains his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which is currently pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”</p>
<p><b>Security not so easily attainable</b></p>
<div class="pullquote">“To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase."—John Paul, Plackal</div>
<p align="justify">However, for the startup especially, such protection does not come without a cost. For this reason, IPR is generally perceived as a gamble or tradeoff. It becomes a “question of priority between innovation and protection,” says Krishnaswamy. He continues in saying that, "I feel like even if it’s a great idea if someone else copies it, that’s some level of validation, but as a small company I’d rather be nimble in terms of how we build it up and get it to a certain point. We're trying to move fast and get something going, and then figure it out.” For Krishnaswamy and his team, securing a patent on an area where they feel they feel they have unique work is on their list of things to do, “It's something for us to revisit in the future.”</p>
<p align="justify">Paul explains that he and his team didn't always have IPR within reach: “To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase.” So what discourages startups from acquiring IPR, or simply seeking it out?</p>
<p align="justify">Patent attorney and IP consultant, Arjun Bala explains that “there is a lot to figure out. One aspect is filling it out, the other is how you write it so that it is easily granted and gives you the right sort of patent protection you are looking for. It is a very complex process that requires a lot of technical and legal expertise.” But even if one successfully manoeuvres the IPR system, is protection guaranteed?</p>
<p align="justify">Business Financial Strategist of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services, Jayant Tewari, illustrates the lack of security for the SME in the patent system, specifically, in saying, “Since a patent becomes public domain on filing, it can be effectively infringed based on the filing, even before it is granted.” Tewari continues in stressing the irrelevance of patents for SMEs due to the difficulty of enforcement: “the infringement will be adjudicated after 2 years at an immense cost to the SME patent-holder, who will go commercially belly-up due to the infringement. The regime does not protect the SME at all.”</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.” <br />—Samuel Mani, Mani Chengappa & Mathur</div>
<p><b>Nevermind enforcement...</b></p>
<p align="justify">Not only did our interviews shed light on the difficulty for a startup developer to apply for and be granted protection for their intellectual property, but also for the enforcement of such. Partnering Lawyer, Samuel Mani, of technology-focused law firm, <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/www.mcmlaw.in" class="external-link">Mani Chengappa & Mathur</a>, speaks to us about the extensive procedure required to prove one's ownership over their IP: “To demonstrate copyright infringement, it requires going into millions of lines of code—unless it is the interface that is copied, which is easily visible.” Mani continues on the enforcement of patent protection by saying, “For a patent, the scope is even wider. It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”</p>
<p><b>Planting the initial seed</b></p>
<p align="justify">If there is arguably so much risk associated with applying for IPR protection, as well with enforcement, what specifically gets startups thinking about IPR initially within their practice? What experiences help them formulate their opinions on the matter, and which forms of IPR do they seek out?</p>
<p align="justify">Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too farfetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.</p>
<p align="justify">Cofounder and developer for a medium-sized software development enterprise, Anoop[1] explained that it wasn't until after the success of his enterprise's first application with $1 million in sales, that they started thinking about intellectual property and began to understand the value of it. This newly attained understanding, however, had not been enough to sufficiently equip his team with the knowledge to properly secure protection. For them, going after patent protection turned out to be a pursuit in vain.</p>
<p><b>Loss of faith in patents for SMEs</b></p>
<p align="justify">Anoop shares his disappointing experience after attempting to secure a patent for one of their mobile apps:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“We burned our fingers with patents. We spent a lot of money for a game we invented about 3 years ago. We had a law firm in the US to help us. We applied for it, and it went through 3-4 revisions, costing us $25-30,000. We finally closed the file when we could not get it due to an existing patent. We were really surprised." </i></p>
<p>After much disappointment from not being successful in their attempts to acquire patent protection, however, Anoop came out of the experience with a new outlook on patents and their role for SMEs:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“They're meant for large companies as means to bully your competitor. Only big players with the capacity to file for a patent as soon as it takes off benefit. The existing system doesn’t really work for startup companies. In India and anywhere. It’s an expensive process. If you’re a startup who’s just bootstrapping, there’s no guarantee that you will get it. It’s going to take you years.”</i></p>
<p align="justify"><b>Patent hype</b><br />Anoop is a prime example of developers in the startup space that fall victim to the promises of the patent system—only to be spat back out having exhausted their time and earnings. Already being aware of the probability for failure, Mani strongly discourages going after patent protection as a means of staying in the race. “With people spending millions on litigation, it is a recipe for disaster, especially considering the inherent delay of the Indian system.” For this reason, Mani stresses the importance of applying for the <i>right </i>protection.</p>
<p align="justify">Mani also suggests that the patent debate is driven by self-interest—people who simply make money off of application filing, regardless of whether or not the case succeeds. As a lawyer in the IT space, Mani claims to have turned away several prospective clients looking to patent their products when he insisted that such means of protection was not suitable for their product and interests...which brings us to an additional area of heated debate: the patentability of mobile apps.</p>
<p><b>Can mobile apps be patented?</b>[2]</p>
<p align="justify">One concept that seemed to receive contested responses across interviews is that of the patentability of mobile apps in the first place. When asked if mobile apps could be patented, former lawyer and startup founder, Vivek Durai, of HumblePaper, put it blatantly in responding, “absolutely not.” Others offered explanations of the Indian Patent Law nuances regarding when a mobile app is patentable and when one is not.</p>
<p align="justify">While consulting a SME with their own patent application, Bala explains their approach to ensure the mobile app's eligibility for patent protection, while providing some insight into the Indian patent system:</p>
<p class="callout"><i>“One approach that we've taken to getting a patent in India is it's not just a pure software, but a software plus a hardware—as in it requires a specific hardware to function. If [the software] makes the hardware perform better, then it has a technical effect... In which case, we have a better chance of getting a patent in India. If your software is agnostic to hardware, however, it is much more difficult to receive a patent in India.” </i></p>
<p align="justify"><b>To patent or not to patent? (or any IPR for that matter)</b><br />To Tewari, on the other hand, the question of whether a mobile app can be patented is one entirely irrelevant. The question Tewari introduces into the developer's market strategy is not 'can I patent my app?' but instead, '<i>should </i>I do so?' In response to which; he would predominantly reply: <i>No</i>.</p>
<p align="justify">“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake,” argues Tewari. Alternatively, he suggests developers learn how to maneuver the laws, to prevent themselves from arriving at any sticky situations after unknowingly using another's code. To his clients who have mobile apps of their own, he advises to use an open source equivalent of a piece of code if they do not have the rights to it. Doing so will help keep infringement upon others at a minimal and prevent litigation against oneself.</p>
<div class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake."—Jayant Tewari, Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services</div>
<p align="justify">Not all developers interviewed, however, aspired to acquiring patent protection. In fact, some strongly opposed software patents, while expressing their appreciation for openness across the developer community. The other side to the IPR-Open Source dichotomy will be examined in the blog post to follow, after which, we will then look at accounts of infringement and threats of litigation across mobile app developers interviewed.</p>
<p><b>To recap<br /></b></p>
<p align="justify">By looking closely at the individual experiences across mobile app developers interviewed, we hope to begin to map out the mobile app ecosystem and the ways in which industry players engage with each other regarding their IPR. We also hope to begin to shed light on the different attitudes towards the law within one's practice, and how they shape their decisions related to their work. Only after doing so, may we be able to sufficiently assess how India's current IP laws govern this landscape.</p>
<p align="justify">Stay tuned for the next in this blog series! We hope that you may benefit from our findings in your own practice as a mobile app industry player or enthusiast, as well.</p>
<p align="justify"><b>Notes:</b><br />[1] <i>Name changed to protect the interviewee's identity</i></p>
<p align="justify">[2] In conducting interviews, our goal was not to test the legitimacy of responses, but instead, to map them out across various industry stakeholders. For this reason, this blog series will not be able to sufficiently respond to legal question, such as whether or not mobile apps are patentable to begin with. We intend to, however, undergo legal analysis of the Indian IPR system at its intersection with the mobile app space in India at a later stage in this project.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii</a>
</p>
No publishersamanthaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPervasive TechnologiesResearchPatents2014-08-19T03:51:39ZBlog EntryPreventive Detention for Copyright Violation: Karnataka Amends the 'Goondas' Act
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation
<b>Last week, the Government of Karnataka amended the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Gamblers Act, 1985 (“the Karnataka Goondas Act”). The Karnataka Goondas Act would now also apply to offences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. This article presents an overview on the various provisions of this law and discusses the potential impact of the amendment.</b>
<p>The<i> </i>blog post by Nehaa Chaudhari was first <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination">published on SpicyIP</a> on August 13, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Goondas and Goondas Acts</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Now used in ‘Indian English’ to mean a ‘<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/goonda">hired thug or bully</a>’, <i>goonda/gunda</i> seems to have Hindi/Urdu <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goondas">origins</a>. Incidentally, <i>thug</i> itself has Hindi <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thug">origins</a>, with its meaning encompassing a range of criminals from robbers to murderers to gangs of criminals, or <i>anti-social elements</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 1923, the <a href="http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/west_bengal/1923/1923WB1.pdf">Goondas Act</a> (India’s first) was enacted in Bengal. As per the Act, a <i>goonda</i><i> </i>residing within, habitually frequenting or visiting <i>Culcutta</i> either by herself/himself or as part of a gang, <i>committing/has committed/assisting in the commission of/is about to commit</i> a non-bailable offence against person or property, or the offence of criminal intimidation or causing breach of peace was liable for action under this legislation. Similar laws were soon enacted across the country, including the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act, 1946 of Madhya Pradesh, (later struck down as unconstitutional in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/882909/"><i>State of Madhya Pradesh </i>v.<i> Baldeo Prasa</i>d</a>), the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (see: an illustrative decision); the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (see: <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/510607/?formInput=goonda%20act%20doctypes:rajasthan">an illustrative decision</a>); The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (legislation prior to the 2004 amendment available here), and the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985, which was amended a few weeks ago.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While these legislations are broadly similar in their object – that of curtailing the criminal activities of ‘<i>goondas’</i> with provisions for removal as well as preventive detention, there is a variation in scope of the legislation. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu having extended the application of their respective Goondas Acts to a larger number of activities, including video piracy – which is the focus of this post.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Karnataka Goondas Act: What Remains and What has Changed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Scope and Definition</b><br />Enacted in 1985 to curb activities of “anti-social” elements, which have frequently disturbed the “even tempo of life” especially in “urban areas”, the Karnataka Goondas Act extended to ‘bootleggers, drug offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and slum grabbers’. Amongst others, <span>the 2014 amendment, which comes into effect “at once”, extends the scope of this legislation to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders”.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>As per the new amendment, Section 2(iv) of the Act first refers to a “digital offender” as ‘<i>when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a digital offender, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.</i><i> </i>An Explanation to Section 2 under Clause (f) specifies that a “digital offender” is <i>any person who knowingly or deliberately violates for commercial purposes any copyright law in relation to any book, music, film, software, artistic or scientific work and also includes any person who illegally enters through the identity of another user and illegally uses any computer or digital network for pecuniary gain for himself or for any other person or commits any of the offences specified under section 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75</i><i> </i>of the <a href="http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/itbill2000_0.pdf">Information Technology Act, 2000</a>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These mentioned sections (67-75 of the IT Act), refer to a variety of measures which penalize refusal to decrypt information, publication of obscene information, access or attempts to access a ‘protected’ computer or network, misrepresentation, and breach of confidentiality and privacy, as well as prescription of penalties for some offences. (See more <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/informationtechnologyact.html#67_Publishing_of_information_which_is_obscene_in_electronic_form" target="_blank">here</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The requirement that the action be committed for a “commercial purpose” has been eliminated in those instances where the offence is a violation of any of the listed sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000</span>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A “video or audio pirate” as defined under amended Section 2(xiii) is <i>when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a video or audio pirate habitually for commercial gain, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.</i><i> </i>The Explanation to Section 2 under amended Clause (o) states that a “video or audio pirate” <i>means a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences of infringement of copyright habitually for commercial gain, in relation to a cinematograph film or a record embodying any part of the soundtrack associated with the film, punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Explanation to amended Section 2 lays down the conditions in which<i> <i>public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely,</i><i> </i>viz. that <i>if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm, or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or grave or widespread danger to life or public health.</i></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Preventive Detention Orders</b><br />The amendment now means the State Government accordingly has the power to detain audio and video pirates and digital offenders, to prevent them from acting in a manner “prejudicial” to public order. In the first instance, such an order may not be for more than three months, it may be extended to a period of twelve months (Section 13), three months at a time, passed for the commission or the suspicion of commission of various offences, including copyright infringement, which under the Copyright Act, 1957 can only be determined by a court of law and is subject to subsequent appeals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2014 amendment also modifies Section 17, by virtue of which no order of detention can be made under the National Security Act, 1980 against any of the persons named under the Karnataka Goondas Act, including audio or video pirates or digital offenders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 8 requires grounds of detention to be disclosed to the detainees within five days of their detention, but not when it might not be in the public interest to do so.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Anomalies</b><br />This recent amendment to the Karnataka Goondas Act has resulted in anomalies. There are probably more; but two come to mind straight away.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><i>First</i>- preventive detention under the Karnataka Goondas Act means that the person arrested need not be produced before a magistrate immediately- there is a significantly long review process and detention may continue for a period of one year.</span></span> This is for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, under which persons arrested have to be produced before a magistrate. This is also for offences under the Copyright Act, 1957, under which a person may be arrested only when found guilty of an offence by the court, whereas the Karnataka Goondas Act allows arrest on mere suspicion. Further, persons detained under this legislation cannot secure bail.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><i>Second-</i><i> </i>the amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act negate the exceptions laid out under the Copyright Act, 1957</span>.</span> While a reading of the Karnataka Goondas Act suggests that copyright infringement for commercial purposes falls under the purview of the legislation (and therefore non -commercial uses are excluded), however, under its provisions, persons may be detained (preventively) on mere suspicion as well. <span><span>Therefore, even if a person were to be performing an activity permitted under the Copyright Act, 1957 (for instance, converting a coyrighted work into a machine readable format for the benefit of persons with disabilities), this person could be preventively detained</span></span> on the suspicion of engaging in this activity for commercial purposes.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Constitutional Validity</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Legislative Competence</b><br />The legislative competence of the Karnataka Government in amending the Karnataka Goondas Act to apply to audio and video pirates as well as to digital offenders is moot. <span><span><i>Prima facie,</i><i> </i>these amendments seem to be unconstitutional</span>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 246 read with List I (Union List) of the <a href="http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock2Pg.Rom8Fsss%2835%29.pdf">Seventh Schedule</a> of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws. Offences related to and committed by “video or audio pirates” or “digital offenders” as explained under the Karnataka Goondas Act are subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws, by virtue of the provisions relating to <i>posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication</i> (Entry 31 of List I) and <i>patents, inventions and designs; copyright; trade-marks and merchandise marks and merchandise marks</i> (Entry 49 of List I).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 246 read with List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the States have the authority to make laws. Seemingly, the Government of Karnataka may have chosen to make laws relating to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders” Entry I of List II, i.e., <i>public order</i>. It is my submission, however, that these offences would not fall under an understanding of “public order” and this amendment would still remain unconstitutional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom of Speech</b><br />Gautam Bhatia’s <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Goondagiri-Of-The-Goonda-Act/291593">article in the Outlook</a> (with a <a href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/karnatakas-amendments-to-the-goonda-act-violate-article-191a/">slightly modified version on his blog</a>) make out the case against the recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Bhatia argues that preventive detention under this legislation would be “prior restraint”, where government action prevents expression before it can take place, which is unconstitutional in most cases. He also argues that in order for free speech to be restricted on the grounds of “public order” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State is required to meet a high threshold, which the Karnataka Goondas Act does not meet.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Closing Comments</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The idea of introducing provisions to deal with online piracy and other ‘digital offences’ under the Goondas Act is not a new one. Mridula Chari <a href="http://scroll.in/article/673042/Why-many-states-are-using-the-1923-Goondas-Act-to-curb-digital-piracy">writes</a> that Tamil Nadu introduced such amendments to its Goondas Act in 2004 and Maharashtra in 2009, with Andhra Pradesh toying with the idea in 2010. She also writes that the Bengali and Punjabi music industries are making demands of their respective governments to introduce their own versions of the Goondas Acts and insert similar provisions. The Economic Times <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-30/news/52237723_1_goonda-act-offences-offenders">report</a> on these recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act also seems to suggest that these changes have been introduced for the protection of business interests. In contrast, in a <a href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/we-the-goondas/articleshow/39564603.cms">detailed report</a>, the Bangalore Mirror provides various illustrations of seemingly innocuous actions which may attract a draconian legislation, ranging from forwarding a song to a friend on WhatsApp to posting comments on social media sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The prospect of the protection of business interests with draconian legislations which are prima facie unconstitutional, aside from being ridiculous is deeply concerning. Widening the scope of these legislations to areas on which they have no constitutional authority to legislate, and introducing provisions with grave ramifications on fundamental rights, states in their continued and extended use of the Goondas Act are engaging in callous ill thought out actions with a deep disregard for their implications.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nehaa is a Nalsar Law graduate. She works on intellectual property/openness law and policy at the Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi. <i>[Note: Due to the examination of definitions in the Act, this post is considerably longer than our standard post. Though the whole post is recommended, readers in a hurry could skip directly to headings titled "Anomalies", "Constitutional Validity" and "Closing comments" for the juicy bits.]</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-08-13T12:46:51ZBlog EntryUpdate on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india
<b>Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021. </b>
<p>This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed
against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd,
Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.</p>
<p>In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to
stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it
allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to
remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did
not appear before the court.</p>
<p>Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is
at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy
organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to
not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of
the websites.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/rsidd120/status/1347227162395303939">One</a>
of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public
health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the <em>only</em>
access to educational and research materials for a big community of
Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have
become indispensable during the pandemic.</p>
<p>This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had <a href="http://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Publication_of_Literature.pdf">advocated</a>
for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as
recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/the-sti-policy-proposes-a-transformative-open-access-approach-for-india/">current draft</a>
science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the
monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and
their crippling impact in the Indian context.</p>
<p>They further argue that since the use of the websites is for
research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair
dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have
the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material
for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the
DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and
jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.</p>
<p>In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the
case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear
all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still
remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been
served properly yet.</p>
<p>At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement
(not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared
some thoughts on the case in an interview <a href="https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/interview-alexandra-elbakyan-sci-hub-elsevier-academic-publishing-open-access/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have
implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the
statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on
circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to
toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS
Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on
exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic
publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.</p>
<p>The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research
needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first
time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing
country.</p>
<p><em>Note:</em> For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this <a href="https://osf.io/6yph7/">document</a> prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.</p>
<p>Access the article on InfoJustice <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/42977">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeCourt Case2021-04-28T17:28:47ZBlog EntryZero Project Conference on Accessibility: Innovative Policies and Practices for Persons with Disabilities
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014
<b>Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre convened an international conference at the United Nations Office in Vienna, Austria on February 27 and 28, 2014. Pranesh Prakash participated in the conference as a speaker. On February 27 he spoke on e-speak and on the following day (February 28) he spoke in a session on Copyright & the Marrakesh Treaty: Opportunities and Challenges.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The conference was attended by over 450 people. Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan had submitted two proposals, one on innovative practices (eSpeak) and one on innovative policy (India's copyright policy). Click on the links below to find more on these:</p>
<ol>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/India_eSpeak-Text-to-Speech-Engine.pdf">Affordable text-to-speech software from India</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Copyright-Amendment-Act_India.pdf">Copyright exception for accessible formats</a></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once again, the Essl Foundation, the World Future Council and the European Foundation Centre have joined forces to convene an international conference in Vienna, Austria. On this occasion we aim to raise awareness about innovative solutions from around the world that advance accessibility for persons with disabilities. The conference seeks to strengthen the commitment of all stakeholders to promote, protect and advance the rights of persons with disabilities, and to improve their daily lives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the third Zero Project Conference on “Accesibility: Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices for Persons with Disabilities” parliamentarians, representatives of NGOs and foundations, academics, social entrepreneurs, disability rights activists and the business world will come together to discuss Innovative Policies and Innovative Practices and explore ways to promote and spread them to other countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Policies: Paving the Way</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Building on the success of our conferences in January 2012 and February 2013, at this Zero Project Conference, 15 Innovative Policies will be presented. They contain promising elements, have achieved identifiable improvements on the ground and point to a positive dynamic change that can be easily replicated in many countries around the world to advance the implementation of the Convention. They overcome conditions that act as barriers to the full exercise of rights by persons with disabilities and constitute the outcome of a multilevel research and selection process.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Innovative Practices: Crucial Steps</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project team has done extensive research worldwide on the most outstanding projects. The expert network that contributed their expertise in actively nominating and evaluating projects included more than 500 persons worldwide from 120 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These projects cover all areas of accessibility, including built environment, transport, products and services and ICT (information, communication and technology).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Be part of the Zero Project Network!</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Zero Project Conference gathers in Vienna the world’s leading representatives of the disability rights movement in order to facilitate a direct exchange of experiences. In this way the world’s most innovative and promising solutions are jointly identified, disseminated and further developed in order to make a noticeable improvement in the daily life and legal situation of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Join the discussion and explore possibilities and potentials on how global implementation of these exemplary solutions can be advanced!</p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/At-a-glance-barrierfree-FINAL2.doc">programme schedule</a></li>
<li>Click here to see the <a class="external-link" href="http://zeroproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Speakerslist-ZPC-20141.pdf">speakers list</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/zero-project-conference-vienna-february-27-28-2014</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2014-03-06T08:44:00ZNews ItemPervasive Technologies Project Presentations at the 4th Global Congress, 2015
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015
<b>These are the presentations made by the members of the PT Project team at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 at National Law University, New Delhi.</b>
<ul>
<li><b>Nehaa Chaudhari: <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-curious-case-of-the-cci-competition-law-and-sep-regulation-in-india" class="internal-link">The Curious Case of the CCI: Competition Law and SEP Regulation in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Amba Uttara Kak and Maggie Huang: <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rethinking-music-copyright-management-in-the-age-of-digital-distribution-business-models-licensing-practices-and-copyright-institutions-in-india" class="internal-link">Rethinking Music Copyright Management in the Age of Digital Distribution: Business Models, Licensing Practices and Copyright Institutions in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Rohini Lakshané</b>:<b> <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-landscaping-in-the-sub-100-mobile-device-market-in-india" class="internal-link">Patent Landscaping in the sub-$100 Mobile Device Market in India</a></b></li>
<li><b>Anubha Sinha: <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ip-in-mobile-applications-development" class="internal-link">IP in Mobile Applications Development in India</a><br /></b></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-presentations-at-the-4th-global-congress-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-01-21T16:33:41ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendments – Empowering the Print Disabled
http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments
<b>The much anticipated Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012 was passed with a few changes in the Rajya Sabha on 17th May 2012 after a very spirited debate and passed by the Lok Sabha on the 22nd May 2012 with unanimous consensus. </b>
<p>The Bill now requires presidential assent to become a law. The Bill discusses various key aspects which have not been addressed in the present copyright regime due to reasons such as changing international standards, technological and scientific advancements. This blog post is limited to the new Section 52(1)(zb) which creates a new copyright exception for the benefit of persons with print disabilities, including persons with visual impairment and dyslexia.</p>
<p>Prior to the inclusive of Section 52(1)(zb) that the owner of copyright in a work had the exclusive right to adapt, make copies, communicate to the public etc. the work. Therefore, any conversion of a book into accessible formats such as Braille, Daisy, audio books, etc., for the benefit of persons with print disabilities could be undertaken only by the owner of copyright or with the permission of the owner of copyright. More often than not, owners of copyright are unwilling or disinterested to either undertake the conversion and sale of such accessible format copies or permit such conversion, for reasons varying from lack of profitability to limited target audience.</p>
<p>The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012 does away with the necessity to seek the consent of the publishers for converting their books into accessible formats. To this extent, the Bill provides that it would not be an infringement of copyright for any person or any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities and on a non-profit basis to create accessible format copies or distribute them to persons with disabilities who cannot enjoy the work in their normal formats. This provision is very wide and inclusive in its scope and also has some protection built in against unauthorized use by non-beneficiaries of the exception. For instance, the books so provided in accessible formats shall be for private or personal use, education or research only. Moreover, the persons or organizations providing such services have the obligation to ensure that such converted formats do not enter the mainstream business channels. While the new exception permits the recovery of the expenses incurred in converting the books, they do not permit the making of any profit under the exception. However, under a new Section 31 B any person working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities on a profit basis or for business can undertake conversion and distribution after obtaining a license from the Copyright Board in accordance with the procedure laid down in that section.</p>
<p>It is to be noted that the original wording of the amendment as proposed by the Copyright Office in 2006 was extremely limited in that it allowed conversion only into “specialized formats designed for persons with disabilities” and not into "all formats" as is the case now. The problem with "specialized formats" is that many persons with print disabilities, including those with dyslexia, person who lost their eyesight at a later age etc. cannot use specialized formats such as Braille and use mainstream formats such as .pdf or audio. By limiting conversion into “specialized formats” such as Braille, a large number of potential beneficiaries would have been excluded from the amendment. In order the attempt to change the wording of the proposed amendment to reflect technological developments and also benefit a larger number of persons with disabilities, the nationwide Right to Read Campaign was launched by Inclusive Planet, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Daisy Forum of India. As a result of sustained campaigning and high level advocacy during which over 70 Members of Parliament were met, we were invited to present evidence before the Parliamentary Standing Committee which fully endorsed our concerns. The Copyright Office then changed the wording from the 2006 wording to the current wording. It still took about a year and half for the amendments to be passed by both Houses of Parliament.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the Copyright Amendment Bill will enable persons with disabilities to be able to exercise their right to knowledge on an equal basis with others. It also shows that a small group of committed disability activists with the support of a handful of lawyers and the tool of high level advocacy can bring about effective change.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/copyright-amendments</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityCopyright2012-09-07T11:11:26ZBlog EntryReport of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society
<b>This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.</b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. <br /> Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Information Session on Broadcasting</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 2: June 30, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Group Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 <sup>nd</sup> SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29<sup>th</sup> SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>National Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy. </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content <em>per se</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the EU, the definitions in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Document SCCR 27/2</a> needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Defining 'broadcasting organizations'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to <em>public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof</em>. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Conclusions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28<sup>th</sup> session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Approach Forward</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27<sup>th</sup> SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Preservation</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Non-Governmental Organizations</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Member States</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: July 3, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities <br /> and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Summary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-04-04T14:39:05ZBlog EntryCopyright Madness
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness
<b>Prompted by courts and piracy-fearing businesses, Indian ISPs have taken down popular, legitimate websites. This Op-ed by Lawrence Liang and Achal Prabhala was published in the Indian Express on May 22, 2012.</b>
<p>The funniest thing about the “ban” on torrent sites and video-sharing
sites by a Madras high court order of March 29 is that it doesn’t work.
Naturally: we’re talking about the Internet, whose users and makers
have fended off twisted judgments, corporate takeovers, undue state
control and outrageous censorship since its inception. So if you
currently live in India and want to read the new Paulo Coelho bestseller
on his preferred distribution service — otherwise known as The Pirate
Bay — or want to watch your own wedding video on Vimeo, the platform of
choice for independent filmmakers, then all you have to do is go through
one of the many hundreds of virtual private networks that provide a
workaround, most of which are free and take about two seconds to
execute.<br />
<br />
Sadly, this is where the fun ends. As you read this, Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) across the country will have put in place an
overreaching, wildly imaginative and totally ludicrous ban on just about
everything the Internet facilitates human beings to excel at —
learning, sharing and growing. The real danger is not the effect of the
court order or its interpretation, but the fact that it is a part of a
disturbing trend in which copyright owners presume that it is piracy
that results in the failure of their films. This, coming from an
industry that regularly churns out facsimiles of Hollywood hits and
renders them original works worthy of copyright protection. Let’s get
this clear: films fail when they are bad. Films that hit the box office
jackpot do so in spite of piracy simply because they are good.<br />
<br />
A quick recap of the facts. Earlier this year, a Chennai firm called
Copyright Labs, acting on behalf of its client R.K. Productions, applied
to the Madras High Court to protect the Tamil film 3 — starring Dhanush
and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajnikanth’s daughter, Aishwarya —
from copyright infringement on the Internet. The petition was filed even
before the film’s release; the protection sought was pre-emptive. The
Madras high court passed a “John Doe” order, which is, in essence, a
sweeping set of protections granted against unknown potential offenders
in the future, without giving any other interested party the chance to
be heard. Any order that does not give the other side a chance to be
heard — without even knowing who the other side is — has to be exercised
judiciously; if every new film produced in India released with an ex
parte order every Friday, principles of natural justice would be
diluted, to the larger detriment of the legal system itself.<br />
<br />
This is not the first John Doe order pertaining to copyright that has
been issued in India, but it is certainly the most consequential.
Previous orders (in relation to copyright) are relatively recent, and
have been passed over the last few years in relation to a single motion
picture and to music at large — but their effects have been relatively
contained. The problem with John Doe orders is that by their overly
broad and sweeping nature, they extend to a range of non-infringing
activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their
net. And speaking of legal acts, the ultimate irony here is that the
first we heard of this film was through the viral hit song Kolaveri Di —
distributed at will with the blessings of the filmmakers — which
created massive pre-release publicity for 3. Consider then that this
order is not quite the slaying of the golden goose, but a gag order on
the animal kingdom since there could be a wild animal lurking amidst the
geese.<br />
<br />
Reading through the list of websites that ISPs have banned — as Nikhil
Pahwa carefully details on Medianama — is an eye-popping exercise. The
Pirate Bay, everyone’s favourite hallucination, is on it. So are
Isohunt, and a few others. Two video-sharing sites are named, Vimeo and
DailyMotion. (Never mind that all these websites house a sizeable
percentage of perfectly legitimate content that is user-generated and
user-uploaded and distributed with the full permission of the copyright
owner.) Inexplicably, the ISPs — or some mysterious intermediaries
between the Madras high court and them — in their wisdom, march forth
and ban a website that allows the sharing of bookmarks (Xmarks), and
another that primarily exists for Twitter users who want to exceed their
140 character limit (Pastebin), regardless of their complete
inapplicability in this situation.<br />
<br />
India’s copyright act allows owners of content the right to prevent
infringement through the use of injunctions, but these injunctions have
to be narrowly construed and applied only to specific instances of
infringement. Which is to say, take down the infringing video, not the
whole website, and don’t intimidate the host. When injunctions threaten
freedom of speech and expression, then free speech should necessarily
trump copyright claims — and the courts cannot be used as convenient
shopping forums for maladies that don’t exist. The real issue here is
that copyright industries have to come up with better business models
that take cognisance of technologies that allow people to exchange
information. The course we are currently on will only result in
strangling technology and stifling innovation and creativity.</p>
<p>Read the original published by the Indian Express <a class="external-link" href="http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22copyright-madness%22/952088/">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-madness</a>
</p>
No publisherLawrence Liang and Achal PrabhalaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-05-30T03:46:24ZBlog EntryPrivacy and the Indian Copyright Act
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act
<b>India's Copyright Act was established in 1957, and is in the process of being placed before the Parliament in 2010. The provisions in the proposed Bill will work to make the Act WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) compliant. When looking at privacy in the context of copyright four key questions arise, says Elonnai Hickock as she analyses privacy in the context of the Indian Copyright Act. </b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technologies such as digital rights management technologies were developed to be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to control the mode of use of certain digital devices and contents. DRM technologies pose as a privacy threat, because in their ability to monitor what is happening to a copyrighted work, they are also able to collect personal information and send it back to a host without knowledge of the user. The host is then able to use that data for marketing or commercial purposes. In the Copyright Act, 1957 there are no current provisions against DRM circumvention. In the proposed Copyright Bill 2010 there are two proposed provisions: to prevent anti circumvention of DRM technologies and one provision that clarifies what is a DRM technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Section 2 (xa)</b>: Defines Rights Management Information – it is important to note that within the definition of RMI the provision specifically excludes any device or procedure intended to identify the user from the definition.<br /><br /><b>Section 65A (1)</b> : Protection of Technological Measures - Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine includes that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, shall maintain a complete record of such other persons including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him.<br /><br /><b>Section 65B</b>: Protection of Rights Management Information – Any person who removes, or distributes, copies, or broadcasts any rights management information without authority shall be by punishable with imprisonment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Recommendation</i>: We find, not just exclusively to the Copyright Act, but that in all Indian legislation the privacy of an individual is brought into question, because there are no safeguards against the commercialization of information, and no formal process of redress if an individual discovers that his information is being used without his consent/prior knowledge. We would recommend that (perhaps appropriately in legislation on data protection) a provision be included to clearly articulate that the collection and commercialization of information and personal data is prohibited by DRM technologies and host companies, and a method of redress be put in place.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Under the copyright, does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Because DRM technologies have the ability to collect user information, which could potentially be done through the use of spyware, it is important that an individual has the ability to know if and when their information is being collected. To do this an individual can discover the technological principles of a device, object, or system through a process known as reverse engineering. Currently reverse engineering is permitted under provision 52 (ac). It is further supported by provision 65A (2) (f).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Current Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Provision 52 (ac): Certain acts not to be in infringement of copyright include: the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programs in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any elements of the program while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer program was supplied. The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:<br />65A (2) (f): Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from, doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user.<br /><br /><i>Recommendation</i>: We have no recommendation, but see this as a positive provision.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India under the current Copyright Act, 1957 there are no provisions for the benefit of disabled persons, thus currently permission from copyright holders needs to be exclusively sought every time the visually challenged person requires access. Under the Constitution of India and the Bernes Convention, India has committed to enshrining the rights of the disabled.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposed Legislation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 31B: will grant compulsory license in respect of publication of any copyrighted works not covered by the exception under section 52 (1) (zb). For this a registered intermediary organization that is recognized under The Persons with Disability Act shall apply to the Copyright Board for approval. The board will evaluate the applicant and application, and grant permission if it sees fit. The intermediary will then be responsible for monitoring the usage of the copyrighted work to ensure that copyright law is not violated.<br /><br /><i>Recommendation</i>: Though currently the Indian legislation does not threaten the privacy of the disabled, we find it concerning that under the WIPO copyright treaty – the anonymity of the disabled would be compromised.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">What is On the Horizon?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As copyright and IP is a constantly evolving issue, countries are consistently amending and changing their laws. With the flow of peoples across borders increasing, Indians will be affected by different international policies that could pose to infringe upon their privacy, for example cross-border checks or three strike regimes, which will punish a person if caught infringing copyright three times. For example: France has proposed cutting off Internet to those caught infringing on copyright three times.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ACTA is a proposed legislation. Its objective is to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Partners in the negotiations include: The United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland. The treaty will oblige each contracting party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures necessary to ensure the application of the treaty. Though ACTA has not been enacted, many worry that ACTA would facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process. The Act could allow for random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies.<br /><i><br />Recommendation</i>: We find that copyright infringement does not appear to justify cross border searches or other forms of regulating. ACTA and other international treaties raise the question that if India became compliant with certain international standards, would the standards would be too stringent without safeguards, and pose as a risk to a person’s privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCopyright2013-08-06T13:37:27ZBlog EntryWIPO reaches agreement on treaty for blind
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind
<b>Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups. </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by Pankaj Mishra was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/zirXp3IC1rTtAFOd2O4fYL/WIPO-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind.html">published in Livemint</a> on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Experts such as <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham </a></span>of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-07-01T09:59:29ZNews Item4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest: Statement of Conclusion for the IP and Development track
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track
<b>The 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was held from December 15 to 17, 2015 in New Delhi. This post provides a summary of the event.</b>
<p>This was also published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track">Global Congress blog</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 1: Feedback on broad discussion in the IP and Dev track – set of collected key points:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This year, the discussions included attention to broad perspectives on clarifying the meaning and reality of open collaborative innovation, as well as significant focus on the sub-themes of economic development (innovation and software patents, clean technologies, climate change and green patenting, issues of branding and plain packaging); sustainable development (agriculture and geographic indicators [GI]); policy, law and regulation (role of governments, patenting, compulsory licensing [CL], global institutions [particularly WTO, WIPO and WHO] and national institutions [particularly patent offices]). Trade dominated the discussions across the IP and Dev track, including the TPP and other issues, reflecting the strong global trade agenda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Missing areas in the track papers, workshops and panel discussions included the limited discussion on traditional knowledge (TK); the work of indigenous groups and how they are navigating the IP landscape; biodiversity; biotech and food security; innovation in the nanotechnology sphere; and inclusive development. Accessibility to innovations for low-income households, and accessibility to innovations at the country level needs greater attention. These topics can be brought out more strongly, more directly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The value of building research networks to create explicit knowledge and coherence in research-based evidence for advocacy and policy-making was made visible in the workshop session presented by Open AIR, with the Open AIR network as the exemplar. The challenge is to translate the kinds of research and evidence presented at the GC into content and value for policy-making and trade negotiations.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 2: Value of the deliberations and future research:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a new track in the GC, introduced in 2015. It is an important track for this and future Global Congresses because it brings together the many strands of research, advocacy and other work that are related to topics in innovation, IP and development, but which are not specifically about openness, user rights or A2M. This is a very broad range of fields of study, from agriculture to nanotechnology. It was proposed that the track be renamed “Innovation and Development” to more explicitly describe its focus.<br /><br />From this GC, it has become clearer what future topics may be considered for papers and other inputs into the IP and Dev track. Such topics include counter-narratives to mainstream IP perspectives; bringing IP for development in multiple sectors to the fore – in education; in automotive manufacturing; in technology evolution; in agricultural production and food security; in the broad policy, law and regulatory environment pertinent to these and other sectoral perspectives. For example, in the paper on green patenting, reference was made to Tesla and Toyota releasing patents, but the session did not get to discuss that. The papers presented at the 4th GC suggest many areas of focus for future research and future GCs – perhaps the best way to think about this exploration is through greater attention to innovation in a range of social and economic sectors; to consider the particular challenges of innovation, IP and development in LDCs; to study innovation ecosystems and where IP fits in these ecosystem. Cross-track sessions are also considered to be very important because of the knowledge sharing that takes place across sectors, for example the discussions on patent wars in the access to medicines (A2M) track provided food for thought with respect to emerging issues in the software sector.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Wrap up note 3: Ideas and implications of GC sessions for future directions for research, collaborations and next GC:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For the next GC, mobilization is required across various geographic regions and a significant discussion is required on preparation and design of the sub-themes, based on the notes above. The requirement for more evidence-based research was noted. It was recommended that the future name of the track should be Innovation and Development. The core group, comprised of track leaders and sessions chairs, should continue the leadership of the track from GC to GC, bringing additional interested persons on board, in particular with respect to the design of sub-themes well in advance of the 5th GC, to guide prospective submissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ends.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsGlobal CongressCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-12-25T02:22:52ZBlog EntryCODE Session
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session
<b>CODE Project is an IDRC funded project, and CIS is a partner institution, along with PIJIP at American University Washington College of Law, USA, Karisma Foundation, Colombia, Derechos Digitale, Chile, American Assembly, Columbia University, USA and FGV, Rio.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this session held in New Delhi on December 17, 2015, CIS presented some preliminary research and sought input on methodology as well as content. The project broadly studies law and policy environment that facilitates/hinders content creation online in Brazil, US, India, Colombia and Chile. A second part of the project, led by PIJIP is developing a copyright index, to chart copyright law developments in many countries around the world. Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha participated in the open session.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/code-session</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-01-13T13:39:43ZNews ItemAn Interview of Vera Franz
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/interview-of-vera-franz
<b>This interview was conducted at the Diplomatic Conference to Conclude a Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities on June 26, 2013. </b>
<p>Vera Franz praises Rahul Cherian of Inclusive Planet while talking about her work. Watch the video below:</p>
<h3>Video</h3>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hhHKJ0DQh4Y" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/interview-of-vera-franz'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/interview-of-vera-franz</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightVideoAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2013-07-15T09:49:16ZNews ItemInternational Copyright Law
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law
<b>Anubha Sinha will be attending the 2016 IViR Summer Course on International Copyright Law as a beneficiary of the OSF Civil Society Scholarship in Amsterdam from July 4 to 8, 2016. The event is being organized by the University of Amsterdam.</b>
<p>For more info <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ivir.nl/courses/icl/icl-programme.html">click here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<table style="text-align: justify; ">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><span><strong>Monday July 4</strong></span></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>8:45-9:15</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Welcome</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:15-9:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Opening Session </em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘International Framework’ </em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session sets out the framework of international copyright protection, and describes the main norms of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and various bilateral instruments.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘TRIPS and Other Trade Agreements'</em><br /> by Daniel Gervais</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session focuses on the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, administered by the WTO, and other more recent trade agreements. It takes a look at the negotiation process leading to their adoption, at the decisions from the WTO Dispute Resolution Panel and the impact on developing nations.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>18:00-21:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>Boat tour on Amsterdam canals and welcome dinner </em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Tuesday July 5</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Copyright and Competition Law'</em><br /> by Thomas Vinje</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In principle, the objectives of copyright law and competition law are complementary in that they are both meant to promote creativity and innovation. In some cases, however, the exercise of exclusive rights runs afoul of competition rules. This session describes how these two fields of law interact.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>‘Recent Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU'</em><br /> by Stef van Gompel</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session examines the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been very active in issuing preliminary rulings interpreting various provisions of the Directive on Copyright in the Information Society and others. This leads to further harmonization of copyright within the EU but it also holds its share of ambiguities.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Wednesday July 6</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Collective Administration of Rights'</em><br /> by Daniel Gervais</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sometimes required by law and other times necessary due to practical reasons, rights owners must exercise their rights through collecting societies. This session outlines the general workings of a collective administration of rights system, and considers its future in a digital environment.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Afternoon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>(free)</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Evening</td>
<td><em>(free)</em></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Thursday July 7</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>‘<em>The EU Copyright Reform Package</em>’<br /> by Martin Senftleben</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Following its Digital Single Market Strategy, the European Commission is in the process of rolling out plans to modernise the EU copyright framework. This session discusses these plans and examines their implications.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Limitations & Exceptions for Libraries and Archives'</em><br /> by Lucie Guibault</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Archives and libraries increasingly wish to engage in digitization projects, e-lending and other relevant activities. This session explores in what way the WIPO agenda and relevant EU Directives provide room for such activities.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<div>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">
<p style="text-align: left; "><strong><span>Friday July 8</span></strong></p>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>9:30-12:30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><em>'Database Protection'</em><br /> by Bernt Hugenholtz</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In Europe, makers of databases enjoy an exclusive right on their databases pursuant to the European Directive on the legal protection of databases. This session examines the scope and content of the sui generis right on databases, and discusses the case law from the European Court of Justice and the national courts.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14:00-17:00</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><i>'Digital Copyright Controversies'</i><br /> by Fred von Lohmann</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>This session discusses the changes brought by the digital networked environment with respect to copyright infringement liability. It describes in greater detail the liability regimes that apply to Internet intermediaries, the challenges posed by user generated content online, as well as emerging solutions to these controversies.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>17:00-19:00</td>
<td><em>Closing reception</em></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-copyright-law</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T15:32:23ZNews Item