The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
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
<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 EntryPervasive 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 Entry4th 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 ItemNational IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response
<b>The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.</p>
<hr />
<h3>I. Introduction</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On 24<sup>th</sup> December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf">first draft</a> of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf">press release</a> dated 30<sup>th</sup> December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses">here</a>).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Research Methodology</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/03/more-submissions-on-the-draft-ip-policy.html">SpicyIP post</a> and will provide an analysis of the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ipr-policy-comments" class="internal-link">spreadsheet</a> that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:</p>
<ul>
<li>Research organisations/NGOs.</li>
<li>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.</li>
<li>Scholars/Academia. </li>
</ul>
<p>A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Categories</th><th>Stakeholders</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Research organisations/NGOs</td>
<td>Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scholars/Academia</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Flowchart" class="image-inline" title="Flowchart" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Assumption" class="image-inline" title="Assumption" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">V. International Treaties</h3>
<p>The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “<i>In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”</i></p>
<p>On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. <i> </i>Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.<img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_Flowchart.png" alt="" class="image-inline" title="" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">VI. Utility Models</h3>
<p>A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.</p>
<p>This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.</p>
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy4_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Utility Models" class="image-inline" title="Utility Models" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘<i>jugaad</i>’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.</p>
<h3>VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.</p>
<h3>VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/Flowchart.png" alt="Limitations and Flexibilities" class="image-inline" title="Limitations and Flexibilities" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IX. Trademarks</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">X. Trade Secrets</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.</p>
<p>The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.</p>
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Trade Secret Protection" class="image-inline" title="Trade Secret Protection" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">XI. On Specialised Courts</h3>
<p>A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.</p>
<h3>XII. Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response</a>
</p>
No publisherAkshath MithalIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-11-24T15:02:17ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIT Roorkee
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in IIT Roorkee.</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2003-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee on 6/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 16/02/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from IIT Roorkee:</p>
<ul>
<li>For RTI Response <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iit-roorkee-receipt-of-rti" class="internal-link">click here</a> (IIT Roorkee -Receipt of RTI- 20.4.15)</li>
<li>For complete supporting documents <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iit-roorkee-response-and-report" class="internal-link">click here</a> (IIT Roorkee – Response and Report)</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIT Roorkee’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIT Roorkee from 2003-20014<br /></b>Reply: The University documented the minutes of the Departmental Faculty Committee Meeting where proposals for forming Departmental Administrative Committee, syllabus for new institute electives, duties of Departmental Research Committee, forming Institute Time Table Committee, conversion of existing LR1 computer lab and teaching scheme of autumn semester 2013 were deliberated upon. The University also organised various events such as Training of Trainers programme and International Conclave on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents indicating the date on which such an IPR Chair was set up at your institution and a copy of the application made by IIT Roorkee to the MHRD for instituting such an IPR Chair and documents received by IIT Roorkee from the MHRD approving the same<br /></b>Reply: According to the Office Memorandum (dated 04 May 2012) of IIT Roorkee, Dr P.K. Ghosh had been appointed on the position of Professional Chair on IPERPO with effect from April 27 2012. A suitable financial grant of Rs. 208.02 lakhs was demanded for a period of five years. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme</b><br />Reply: As it appears from the reply filed by IIT Roorkee to the RTI filed by the CIS, Rs. 30,00,000.00 of the Grant in aid was sanctioned to the University by the MHRD during the financial year 2010-2011 and nil amount was utilized for the purpose of it. At the end of the year, the balance sum of Rs. 30,27,041 (including the interest) was surrendered to the Government.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIT Roorkee</b><br />Reply: IIT Roorkee has replied with a series of Statement of Expenditure ranging from 2010-2014 that explains its rate of expenditure and amount of interest accumulated and surrendered to the Government along with the unutilized amount. In the financial year 2011-2012 the unutilized expenditure was 3,105,159.00 which came down to 11,74, 026.00 in 2012-2013 due to which a grant of Rs. 24,00,000.00 was extended to the University by MHRD for the financial year 2013-2014.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents regarding all matters pertaining to finance and budget related the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPOs scheme established at IIT Roorkee</b><br />Reply: CIS did not receive any sort of clarity on matters pertaining to finance and budget related to MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme as the response for this question was coupled with the previous question on utilization certificates.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary</b><br />Reply: According to the RTI reply, the position of Chair Professor is awarded for a period of three years or upto 68 years of age, whichever is earlier. The pay of Chair Professor is fixed as per the rules and guidelines of Professional Chair in the institute.</li>
</ol>
<p>2.0 Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf">The Scheme Document of MHRD</a> is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A. Objectives:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it appears from the reply statement of IIT Roorkee, each and every event organised after the establishment of IPR Chair in 2012, where the funds from the grant have been utilized, is done to promote the scholarly as well as academic interests in the field of Intellectual Property. Even before applying for the MHRD grant, the University has organised many National Seminars and has started various short term courses in order to encourage research and excellence in Intellectual Property. This fact completely resonates with the core objective of MHRD scheme document, i.e. strengthening the academic and research discourses in the field of Intellectual Property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Eligibility: <br />IIT Roorkee is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">C. Conditions for Grant of Assistance <br />There are several conditions laid down in the scheme document which need to be fulfilled by the concerned University in order to successfully receive the grant. The underlying condition is the dissemination and development in the field of Intellectual Property Rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the documents available with CIS, IIT Roorkee has organised at least 27 events in the field of IPR ranging from introduction of new electives, National Workshops and Symposiums, Expert Lectures, Infrastructure Development, Online portals for IP Administration and awareness and infrastructure development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.0 Financial Analysis of IIT Roorkee’s IPR Grant</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the RTI reply, the IPR Chair at IIT Roorkee was established in the forenoon of 27th April 2012 with Dr P.K. Ghosh as its Chairman. Dr Ghosh was promised an Honorarium payment of Rs. 30,000 per month and a Contingency payment of Rs. 20,000 per month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.1 Financial Year 2010-2011</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the IPR Chair was not established at IIT Roorkee. The total grant received by the University was Rs. 30, 00,000.00 out of which Rs.0 was utilized for the purpose of it was sanctioned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the financial year, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000, (due to Nil utilisation) along with the interest of Rs. 27041 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.2 Financial Year 2011-2012</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPR Chair was still not established at the University. The opening balance was the amount carried forward from the previous year (30,27,041) upon which interest of Rs. 1,17,117 was received making the total receipt to be 31,144,158. Out of this, a total of Rs. 38,999 was utilised for travelling and miscellaneous expenditure. At the end of the year, the remaining of amount of Rs. 3,105,159 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grant-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2012-2013. As per the documents available with CIS, the statement of expenditure for this financial year has not been submitted by the university.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.3 Financial Year 2012-2013</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year the IPR Chair was established with Dr. P.K. Ghosh as its Chairman. The Opening balance was the amount carried forward from the previous financial year (31,05,159) upon which an interest income of Rs.1,25,376 was received along with a refund of advance amounting to Rs. 42,968. Out of the total receipt of Rs. 32,73,503 the total expenditure of the University on the current financial year was Rs. 20,99,477. The remaining amount of Rs. 11,74,026 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.4 Financial Year 2013-2014</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the University received a grant of Rs. 24,00,000 from the government along with the amount carried forward from the previous financial year (Rs.11,74,026) upon which an interest income of Rs. 55,892 was received. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 24,01,045 was utilised as contingency expenditure. The remaining amount of Rs. 12,28,873 has been either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2014-2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the expenditure on library (5,00,979) is the only sum which exceeded the sanctioned amount (5,00,000). Moreover, there has been no expenditure on Outreach Program and Clinics. The honorarium payment to the IPR Chair Professor is similar to the sanctioned amount (3,60,000) but there’s a difference in his contingent payment (1,39,645 instead of 2,40,000). The total amount of expenditure in this financial year is Rs. 24,01,045.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee</a>
</p>
No publisherKaran Tripathi and Nehaa ChaudhariIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-11-21T07:26:45ZBlog EntryComparative Transparency Review of Collective Management Organisations in India, United Kingdom and the United States
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparative-transparency-review-of-collective-management-organisations-in-india-uk-usa
<b>This Transparency Review seeks to compare the publicly available information on the websites of music collective management organizations (“CMOs”) operating within India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. A total of 10 CMOs were selected, which included a range of non-profit, government registered organizations to for-profit, private organizations, managing works on behalf of record labels, publishers, composers, lyricists, and music performers. This exercise intends to contribute to the growing body of research on the relationship between transparency and effectiveness of CMOs. It concludes with recommendations and learnings which may lead to more transparent and effective functioning of copyright societies in India, and management of music copyright overall. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The research paper was co-authored by Maggie Huang, Arpita Sengupta, Paavni Anand.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Taking into account the needs of users and members of CMOs, the following pieces of information was determined to be useful to report on the websites: : membership lists, governing directors, user types, tariff rates, royalty distribution schemes, and annual revenue reports. Collectively, the presence of these became rough parameters for transparency. The authors then reviewed each website to determine whether this information was made publicly available, and whether such disclosure was voluntary or mandated by law. As a proxy for effectiveness, percentage of revenue distributed as royalties was calculated for those who made their annual revenue report available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Broadly, the review found that India's 2012 Copyright Amendment Act and 2013 Copyright Rules were by far the most stringent regarding registration, operations, rate setting, and reporting. Despite India's strict laws, it appears there is little compliance, particularly by PPL which failed to report the mandated tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, and its annual revenue report. ISRA had all the information sought on their website except for the crucial annual revenue report. IPRS however clearly made an effort to comply, with all information sought, provided.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Relative to India, CMOs in the United Kingdom were regulated less strictly, with U.K.'s 2014 Copyright Regulations allowing self regulation provided CMOs follow guidelines to comply with the operating code of conduct. All six indicators were available on websites of both UK PPL and PRS for Music, although the latter required user authorization to access membership/repertoire data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In comparison, the U.S. seems to have the most lax reporting standards of the three, really only mandating basic reporting for CMOs administering statutory licenses. However, similar to India, rate-setting in the U.S. for certain digital broadcasts are subject to significant government control, in addition to anticompetetive measures which prevent partial withdrawal of rights from certain CMOs’ blanket licenses. Availability of information varied, with BMI and Sound Exchange complying with the more demanding parts of US legislation and disclosing all information sought, while ASCAP and HFA were missing tariff rates and user types respectively. SESAC was the least informative, with governing directors absent, and more crucially, their annual revenue report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To determine relative efficiency, the authors calculated the percentage of royalties distributed per total revenue for those CMOs which published their revenue reports. All distributed royalties ranged between 80%-90%. Though not necessarily the most accurate measure, there appeared no significant correlation between the percentage of distributed royalties, and amount of information found; therefore a correlation between effectiveness and information transparency remain unknown.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, throughout the exercise, the limitations of the research design became clear, leading to its own learnings for future research. Methodologically, the more attention should have been paid to spanning a wider spectrum of legal control, drawing clear lines of which types of CMOs to include in the study, being careful not to equate presence of information with usability or effectiveness, deeper assessment of the legal provisions, and the inclusion of membership exclusive data as part of the exercise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nevertheless, the comparative review process did produce several learnings that Indian CMOs could adopt for enhanced transparency and potentially improved effectiveness as well. These recommendations are as follows:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Publish the full repertoire of works the CMO is authorized to license, and its corresponding rights holder information in a searchable format;</li>
<li>Provide a platform for collectively identifying the rights-holder of orphan works (works which are registered whose royalties are collected, but ownership information is unknown);</li>
<li>Guide new users and potential members through a more user-friendly designed page with simplified, accessible introduction to music licensing;</li>
<li>Increase clarity surrounding royalty distribution policies;</li>
<li>Publish updated annual revenue reports; and</li>
<li>Clarify the dispute resolution processes.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This review concludes by suggesting future research through stronger methodological design, further exploring membership exclusive data, assessing effectiveness outcomes between multiple, competing licensing bodies versus a single, state-granted monopoly society, and the possibility of alternative compensation schemes for music financing and production.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MOTIVATIONS FOR RESEARCH: MUSIC COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT IN THE MOBILE MUSIC AGE for the PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Managing copyright in the digital age is one of the most contentious issues today amongst music industries globally. Innovation in digital technologies has opened up formerly restricted production and distribution channels, resulting in a proliferation of music like never before.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mobile phone is one of these innovations, particularly since becoming the most preferred music listening device in India. <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The overarching utility of the mobile phone has made it the object of study for the Centre for Internet and Society's Pervasive Technologies project<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>, which seeks to identify intellectual property levers which can enhance access to affordable mobile devices' hardware, software, and content within India and China.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Access to music content<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> via the mobile phone is one of the chapter's primary focus, with a research objective of balancing access to music for internet and mobile consumers, while ensuring the protection of rights and remuneration for artists and creators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The initial phases of this research found that new stakeholders such as device manufacturers, telecom operators, and streaming services were developing business models based on a free, ad-supported service with a paid premium tier, ultimately resulting in high royalty payouts and low profit margins. However, artists in India and worldwide are raising grievances due to decreasing royalty revenue, putting to question whether these business models are sustainable in the long term.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We had hoped to answer these questions within the Indian context, but the findings were ultimately inconclusive. This was primarily due to two reasons: 1) lack of data transparency at multiple levels of the music distribution chain, and 2) a copyright management system heavily in flux due to poor enforcement of the ambiguous 2012 Copyright Amendment Act. The copyright societies in India embodied both these issues in India, resulting in a need to study these institutions further as one of the main objects of research.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: justify; "></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><a name="h.vg3w2y5ah5bq"></a> INTRODUCTION to COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS and the NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Music copyright societies, commonly referred to as collecting agencies or collective management organizations ("CMOs") provides music rights holders (authors, owners, and performers of lyrics, compositions, and sound recordings) the ability to authorize the licensing of their copyrighted works to another body (the CMO) who can collect royalties from the numerous sources of usage on behalf of its members. If the law allows, these CMOs are also able to collectively negotiate for rates as well. Royalties derived from these licenses are often collected and distributed by CMOs as a source of income for the creators of musical works, after administrative costs are deducted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CMOs and their rights-holder members represent a principle-agent relationship as agent-CMOs collects royalties from users on behalf of its principle rightsholder-members. However, if a conflict of interest arises, the inherent information asymmetry may give rise to abuse. In the case of CMOs, this standard principle-agent problem has manifested in forms ranging from inefficient administration overhead, to more dubious acts of corruption and collusion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Economic theory tells us that the key to a free and fair market is "perfect information", or when stakeholders are equipped with the relevant information needed to make market decisions. Information enforces accountability, an idea that sparked the Right to Information movement in India. This is why transparency is especially critical in the music industry, characterized by complex revenue and consumption patterns, an intricate copyright law framework and stakeholders with varying levels of bargaining power.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given many CMOs operate as state-granted monopolies which exclusively administer specific class of works, it is important that the collection and distribution of royalties occur in a transparent manner so members and regulators can scrutinize its functioning to ensure greatest effectiveness. For countries which allow competition between CMOs, transparency in operations and revenue data can provide users and members the ability to make an informed choice, and the opportunity for other competing players to enter the market.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Within India, transparency has been a recurring issue due to allegations of mismanagement and corruption<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a> of the copyright societies. This was one of the motivations for the 2012 Copyright Amendment and subsequent<a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copy-Right-Rules-2013.pdf">2013 </a><a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copy-Right-Rules-2013.pdf">Copyright</a> <a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copy-Right-Rules-2013.pdf"> </a><a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copy-Right-Rules-2013.pdf">Rules</a> which attempted to address, amongst other issues, regulations around transparency for registered copyright societies in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, in light of new transparency and operations regulations for India, and inconclusive research findings due to sparse data, the authors sought to review the transparency of various CMO websites and their corresponding regulatory measures in the hopes of answering the following questions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. How does India's level of CMO transparency compare to other countries?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Is disclosure of information a result of regulatory pressures or voluntary?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. What kind of learnings and recommendations can be made from the voluntary information disclosure and/or legal regulatory environments of other countries?</p>
<h1 style="text-align: justify; "></h1>
<h1 style="text-align: justify; "></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>METHODOLOGY</b></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.fubfsutt2035"></a> Selecting countries for comparison</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since one of the broader goals of this review was to identify legal and/or industry led proposals for increased CMO effectiveness in India, the authors wanted to select case study country samples which were relevant and useful for the Indian context, while also considering differing legal and regulatory regimes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States was chosen due to its competitive CMO structure where multiple CMOs administering the same class of musical works, and representing similar kinds of rights-holders can co-exist as private entities. Aside from statutory rate-setting of sound recording broadcasts, and anticompetitive consent decrees for ASCAP and BMI, the United States seem to have little to no regulation overall surrounding CMO operations and management. <br /> <br /> The United Kingdom was selected due to its recent growing interests in the Indian music industry. This was demonstrated by the high volume of British attendants at recent Indian music industry conferences , several of which were directly sponsored by UK Trade & Investment as a music trade export mission.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> In addition, U.K.'s CMO structure seemed to be more streamlined, with class of works separately managed under two main music CMOs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian research participants of ongoing research also expressed interest in registering their musical works with CMOs in the U.S. and U.K. given increasing market demand, higher currency exchange, and increased reliability of royalty receipts. This was further indication of relevant country case studies for a comparison with India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.38a2nkn6kv5k"></a> Identifying the Relevant CMOs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Due to challenges enforcing India's 2012 Copyright Amendment Act, and subsequent ambiguity of copyright societies' registration statuses, the selection criteria for CMOs consisted of those organizations which generally issued music licenses and collected royalty revenue on behalf of other rights-holder members.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, the following three CMOs were identified for this review: the Indian Performing Right Society ("IPRS") which collects on behalf of composers, lyricists, and publisher-members<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>; the Phonographic Performance Limited ("PPL") which exclusively controls public performance and broadcasting rights for its music label members<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a>; and the Indian Singers Rights Association ("ISRA") which is currently the sole officially registered copyright society collecting on behalf of singers for their Performer's Rights. <a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The status of IPRS and PPL as registered societies are ambiguous due to recent reports of registration withdrawal <a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>; therefore compliance to Section 33 of the Copyright Act is uncertain. However, the authors chose to uphold the same standards in this review due to similarity in purpose and functioning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the U.S., the identified CMOs included the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers ("ASCAP"), Broadcast Music, Inc, ("BMI") and SESAC (originally the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers) which are all competing Performing Rights Organizations collecting on behalf of songwriters and music publishers for public performance rights. SoundExchange is responsible for managing digital sound recordings for copyright owners (mostly music labels) and performing artists; while Harry Fox Agency ("HFA") collects mechanical royalties on behalf of publishers and songwriters when their compositions are reproduced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the U.K., two CMOs were identified: PRS for Music which manages public performance rights on behalf of songwriters, composers, and music publishers; and Phonographic Performance Limited ("PPL-UK"), which manages the rights of performers and record producers. Unlike the United States and India, each society exclusively manages separate categories of works. Although technically a compulsory collective licensing scheme is mandated under Indian copyright law for musical works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings, ambiguity in India remains due to the unregistered/deregistered yet still functioning licensing bodies.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Identifying the comparative parameters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To compare CMOs transparency, the authors sought to develop a feasible proxy to determine their website's degree of disclosure. This was done considering two main stakeholders who most often access CMO websites: rights-holders, and users. The rights holders are owners and/or authors of a copyright or related right (i.e. performer's right) who is a member, has sought membership, or is a potential member of the CMO. The user is any person or organization who seeks to use the copyrighted work and is hence made to pay a fee for such use. This fee is generally based on the licensing agreement, struck between the CMO and the user on behalf of their collective rights holders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, the following information was identified to be useful for comparative assessment: list of members, governing directors, usage types, tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, annual revenue report, and percentage of distributed royalties. The justifications, and comparative findings are outlined below.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>FINDINGS</b></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">List of members</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Publishing members lists is useful for potential users since it can collectively reduce search costs for ownership information, making the process of licensing and royalty collection more efficient overall. In addition, users approached for licensing payment can also verify that the CMO is indeed authorized to administer those works. This has been a recurring issue in recent history for CMOs in both the United States <a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a> and India<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>, which have reported extortion-like licensing demands for songs which may not have been even owned by their member rights-holders. Some have been alleged to demand licenses for broad, undefined catalogs like entire genres of music.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a> Having members lists published can prevent these discrepancies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, all identified CMOs published their membership lists in accordance with Rule 66, section 1(c) of the Copyright Rules, which mandates the disclosure of members lists explicitly on the website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the U.S., all CMOs have published their membership data either as full lists or in the form of a searchable repertoire database corresponding with the specific work. This presentation format was similar in the U.K. although PRS for Music restricted access to authorized users. Nevertheless, this disclosure went beyond U.K.'s<i> Copyright Regulations</i> which only require the number of rights holders represented, whether as members or non-member rights holders to be published in the annual report. To the authors' knowledge, the U.S. does not seem to have an equivalent law as such. <br /> <br /> Several CMO websites in the U.S. and U.K. also feature a search for owners of orphan works - copyrighted songs within their catalog in which the due rights-holders are unable to be contacted, or simply unknown due to a multitude of reasons, including lack of data collection, transfer of rights, unknown inheritance from deceased rights holders, amongst others. Many of these CMOs hold undistributed royalties for these works, bringing to question whether rights-holder members truly give genuine authorization for their continued licensing. <br /> <br /> India's CMOs could enhance their transparency by adopting the repertoire format of membership disclosure which corresponds with each copyrighted work. It could also provide a platform to collectively identify orphan works' due rights-holders.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>List of Members Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation? </b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><i>Copyright Rules, 2013,</i> Rule 66 Code of Conduct for Copyright Societies. <i> Section (1): Every society shall make available on its website... c) List of all members in the general body</i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, members can be searched through a database<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, members can be searched through a database.<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14">[14]</a></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, member list available through repertoire search and as downloadable full list.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15">[15]</a></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, artists can be individually searched via HFA's 'Songfile' database<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16">[16]</a> but not available as a whole</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, repertoire search database including member/label search exists.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17">[17]</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Copyright</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf"> (</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Regulation</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf"> of </a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Relevant</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Licensing</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Bodies</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">)</a><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">Regulations</a> <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111110485/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111110485_en.pdf">, 2014</a> Reporting Requirements</p>
<p>6. The code of practice shall require the relevant licensing body to publish an annual report which includes: <br /> <br /> a) the number of right holders represented, whether as members or through representative arrangements including, where possible and if applicable, an estimate of the number of non-member right holders represented by any Extended Collective Licensing Scheme</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A database exists but restricted to authorized users</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Governing directors</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For rights holder members, knowledge of the governing members directing the functioning of the CMO can help ensure decision making occurs in a representative, accountable manner. In 2011, it was found that IPRS and PPL of India were governed by the same Board of Directors <a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18">[18]</a>, despite theoretically managing distinct sets of rights and representing different rights-holder members. Stopps (2013) in WIPO's<i> 'How to Make a Living from Music'</i> states that democratic governance is highly desirable if not essential, since the board structure should ideally reflect the rights they administer.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19">[19]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, all CMOs comply with the 2013 Copyright Rules which mandates the publishing of Governing Council members on its website. All CMOs in the United States, with the exception of SESAC have published information on their governing or executive board. SESAC does highlight the appointment of the CEO within its 'news' section, but not in an easily accessible location. <br /> <br /> In the UK, the governing directors are disclosed, though not explicitly mandated for disclosure on the website. Copyright Regulations does require the appointment procedure of the Directors and their remuneration be included in the Annual Report. India's<i> 2014 Copyright Rules</i> appears relatively stringent in comparison given the process is specified in detail rather than a self-regulated process.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Governing Directors Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation?</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><i>Copyright Rules, 2013,</i> Rule 66 Code of Conduct for Copyright Societies. <i> Section (1): Every society shall make available on its website… d) Names and address of chairman, other members of the Governing Council and other officers in the society </i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><i> Copyright Rules 59 Management of Copyright Society (1) Every copyright society shall have… a) General body…b) Governing Council with Chairman… c) a CEO… (3) The Chairman shall be elected by two third of the majority…. </i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, management</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Appointment of CEO announced under 'News' section.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a> No other members found</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b> </b> Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations, 2014 requires the procedure for appointment of Directors, and the list of remuneration of the Directors to be included in the Annual Report.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">User Categories</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The categorization of users simply allow potential licensees to understand when they would be legally required to purchase a music license given the scope and scale of their business/usage. User categories can range from restaurants, internet streaming, radio broadcasting, and live performance; to the physical reproduction of a musical composition or sound recording (for example through photocopying of sheet music or burning of CDs).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All CMOs identified had user categories displayed on the websites, with some presenting the distinctions through search options while others outlined usage types as a general list. Only India's Copyright Rules mandated the publishing of different categories of users as part of their tariff scheme. <br /> U.S.'s HFA did not not distinguish licensing requirements by user type, but did communicate when a license would be needed through simple questions regarding usage.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>User categories<b> Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation?</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>According to Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, it is mandatory for Indian CMOs to publish on their website the different categories of users in their Tariff Scheme</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, Search bar for user types available</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Not specifically, but section on 'What kind of license do I need' delineates user types</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Tariff Rates</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tariff rates are the costs of licenses issued by the CMOs. The calculation of these rates are done in a myriad of ways, ranging from being fixed by statutory provisions, set collectively by CMOs, or negotiated privately in a willing buyer-willing seller market. Some rate-setting considerations have included anticipated number of listeners, physical size of establishment, time of music use, number of loudspeakers, etc. Due to similarities in mode and scale of usage, most fixed tariff rates such as blanket licenses offered by CMOs are distinguished by different categories of users, most fixed tariff rates are divided accordingly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a market like the U.S. where CMOs compete to sublicense similar kinds of rights, publishing tariff rates can enable comparison of licensing fees for the most cost effective choice.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a> It can also allow users to forecast licensing expenses and adjust their business models or anticipated usage accordingly. Lastly, transparent cost calculations as opposed to hidden negotiated rates can prevent price and user discrimination, since licensees can verify the accuracy of their license charge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, IPRS and ISRA complies to Rule 56 (2) of the <i>Copyright Rules 2014 </i>which mandates the publication of rates distinguished by categories of users, mode of exploitation, user group, durations of use, and territory. In U.K., both CMOs comply with Section 5(c) of their <i>Copyright Regulations 2014 </i>which mandates the publication of 'tariff rates in a uniform format' on the website as part of the monitoring and reporting requirements. In the U.S., all CMOs with the exception of ASCAP publish their tariff rates.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although the U.S. does not seem to mandate the explicit disclosure of rates, both U.S. and India set statutory rates for certain uses of sound recordings. In the U.S. for example, the rates for ephemeral sound recordings akin to non-interactive, radio-like services are set by the Copyright Royalty Board under S17 USC 112 and 114. Similarly, in India, a statutory rate is also fixed by the Copyright Board for radio broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As an anticompetitive measure, music consent decrees in the U.S. also mandate that ASCAP and BMI provide licenses on equivalent, non exclusive terms. This means that while its members can still individually refrain from joining a CMO in its entirety, partial withdrawing of their works from blanket licenses are not allowed.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22">[22]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite fairly affordable statutory rates for use in non-interactive services, interactive streaming which seeks to host popular content often still requires direct licensing agreements from major record label conglomerates. Due to the importance of acquiring that content, these labels are often able to negotiate exclusive deals with hidden terms. Evolving music consumption patterns and an inconsistent rate-setting landscape have raised grievances, particularly amongst songwriters. In the U.S., this has led to the Copyright Office's review and reconsideration of the music licensing landscape in recent months, while in India, the cost of content acquisition remain a source of debate by the services.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Tariff Rates Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation?</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, listed as per usage types</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013: ...must indicate separate for categories of users, media of exploitation, user group, durations of use and territory, etc.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No, must request</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No regulation mandating the disclosure of tariff rates.</p>
<p>Consent decrees for BMI/ASCAP as an anticompetitive measure mandates offering of licenses to services on equivalent, non exclusive terms.</p>
<p>Statutory rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, rate charts published<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23">[23]</a></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 Section 5 of its Specified Criteria mandates 'provide details of tariffs in a uniform format on its website.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Royalty distribution policy</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The royalty distribution policy typically outlines the process and manner of royalty distribution, specifying how royalty is split between member-rights holders and the CMO. It usually notes the frequency of payments as well. Since one of the main reasons a rights-holder seeks membership within a CMO is to ensure their royalties are received on a consistent basis without themselves having to track down all users of their work, a transparent distribution policy is of utmost importance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, IPRS and ISRA published the distribution policy on their website in compliance with Rule 58 of the <i>Copyright Rules</i>. Upon review of both, it was interesting to note the lack of detail in India's policies. Although it is specified in the Act, ISRA does not convey on its website clearly the distribution of percentages, nor the administrative cut it seeks to take. IPRS was very unclear about their frequency of payments, noting that "The distribution of Royalties shall be carried out <i>promptly from time to time"</i>, despite the Copyright rules stipulating that the frequency be set at every quarter. <i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the U.S., <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">S</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">. 370.5 (</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">c</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">)</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">of</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">the</a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>Code</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>of</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>Federal</i></a> <i> Regulations </i>for statutorily set sound recordings do state that online-published Annual Reports must have information on how royalties are collected, distributed, and spent as administrative expenses. All CMOs seem to comply.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the UK, Section 6 of the 2014 Copyright Regulations <i>Specified Criteria </i>mandates<i> </i>reporting of the distribution policy in its annual report. Both identified CMOs comply.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Royalty Distribution Policy Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation?</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, although quite vague, unclear frequency of payments<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Rule 58 of the Copyright Rules 2013 outline the terms of the Royalty Distribution Policy</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, but vague, unclear re: distribution of percentages and administrative deduction.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, it outlines exactly how it is calculated</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For designated collection and distribution companies for use of sound recordings under statutory licenses: <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">S</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> . 370.5 ( </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">c</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">)</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">of</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">the</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Code </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">of</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Federal </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Regulations </a> , as part of the annual Report, Collectives must indicate how royalties are collected and distributed. <br /> <br /></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, in the Royalty Policy Manual</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, rate charts<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a> and commission rates revealed.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 Section 6 Reporting Requirements of its Specified Criteria mandates the publishing of the distribution policy in its annual report.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Annual revenue report</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The annual revenue report provides an overview of total income, which is particularly important for a CMO acting as a non-profit organization. Rightsholders can assess what the rest of the revenue is being used for, and cross-verify whether the self-reported data is true. For market and policy researchers, the annual revenue report can also provide the breakdown of which licensing services or catalogs are being used. An externally audited revenue report also enhances trust in the organization and ensures reliable financial transparency. Thus, the publication of the annual revenue report forms one of the most important benchmarks of transparency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, only IPRS has published their 2013-14 annual revenue report in compliance with Rule 66 of the <i>Copyright Rules </i>which mandates the publishing of an annual report and audited accounts on their website. None of the other CMOs seem to have done this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the United States,<a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>S</i></a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>. 370.5 (</i></a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>c</i></a><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>)</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>of</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>the</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>Code</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>of</i></a><i> </i><a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"><i>Federal</i></a> <i> </i> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> <i>Regulations</i> </a> mandates that CMOs collecting and distributing for statutorily licensed sound recordings must publish their annual revenue report. CMO SoundExchange complies, while HFA does so voluntarily. ASCAP and BMI also post their reports on occasion with a few years missing, but SESAC's report seems to be absent, possibly due to private incorporated company status.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the UK, both CMOs comply with the 2014 <i>Copyright Regulations </i>under Rule 6 mandating the publication of an annual report.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Annual Revenue Report Available on Website?</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Regulation?</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, for year '13-'14</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Rule 66 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, CMOs mandate the publishing of an annual report and audited accounts on their website.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, until 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For designated collection and distribution companies for use of sound recordings under statutory licenses: <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">S</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> . 370.5 ( </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">c</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">)</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">of</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">the</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Code </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8">of</a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Federal </a> <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=aa7e41c7083f895eb158e8a74d02b056&mc=true&node=se37.1.370_15&rgn=div8"> Regulations </a> .</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sporadically posted</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No (possibly because privately held company?)</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, until 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In UK, the Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations, 2014 under Rule 6 requires that every CMO publish an annual report containing the annual financial statements, collections from the different licenses and the distribution of royalties.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes, until 2014</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.ux7616amd2xb"></a> Percentage of Revenue as Distributed Royalties</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the main function of CMOs are to secure royalties for rights-holders, the percentage of revenue as distributed royalties was calculated using numbers from the latest published annual revenue reports. Although there are differences in CMO mandates and subsequently their investment on litigation and advocacy for example, the proportion of revenue as distributed royalties was used as a simplified proxy of effectiveness for this review. <a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26">[26]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For those CMOs who published their annual revenue reports, it was found that the percentage of revenue as distributed royalties seemed to range between 80-90%. Given the controversies surrounding collecting societies in India, it was admittedly surprising that IPRS' distributed royalty percentage averaged almost 1% higher than comparable societies in the UK. It is also interesting that the United States seem to have the most efficient CMOs, with two rounding to 90%.</p>
<table class="grid listing" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>CMO </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Data reported on Website</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Percentage of Revenue as Distributed Royalties </b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>IPRS</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>From 2013/14 annual revenue report: <br /> Net royalties payable: Rs 396743413 / <br /> License fees total revenue Rs 470934348:</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>0.84246013204 = 84.25%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PPL</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>ISRA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United States</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ASCAP</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Self reported 88cents/dollar goes back to artists.</p>
<p>2014 Revenue Report: <br /> Total receipts: 945 385 <br /> Total distribution to members: 850 984</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><a name="id.gjdgxs"></a> 850 984/945 385 = 0.90014544339</p>
<p>90.01%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>BMI</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Self reported numbers from press release:</p>
<p>"For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, BMI reported revenues of $898.7 million and royalty distributions to our affiliates totaling $749.8 million."</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>749.8 / 898.7 = 0.83431623456 <br /> <br /> 83.43%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SESAC</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>SoundExchange</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Self reported from pre-audit 2013 fiscal report<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27">[27]</a>: <br /> <br /> Total Royalties Collected $656 <br /> Total gross distributions $590</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><a name="id.30j0zll"></a> 590 / 656 = 0.8993902439</p>
<p>89.94%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>HFA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A but self reported 11.5% commission<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28">[28]</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>N/A</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PPL UK</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Self reported from 2013 financial statement:<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29">[29]</a></p>
<p>Total license fee income: £176.9 m</p>
<p>Net distributable revenue: £148.4m</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><a name="id.1fob9te"></a> 0.83889202939</p>
<p>83.89%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>PRS for Music</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Self-reported from 2014 annual revenue report<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30">[30]</a>: <br /> <br /> Our royalty revenues for the</p>
<p>year were £664.3m, of which we</p>
<p>distributed £565.6m to members.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><a name="id.3znysh7"></a> 565.6/664.3 = 0.85142255005</p>
<p>85.14%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>LIMITATIONS & LEARNINGS</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The major limitation of this review is rooted in its various methodological weaknesses, ranging from the sampling of countries, inclusion of ambiguous CMOs, possible bias towards Indian copyright law during the parameter design, limitations of distributed royalties percentage as an effectiveness proxy, lack of measurable factors when attempting to evaluate 'ease of website use', and somewhat shallow legal research. Nevertheless, these were part and parcel of the learnings which stemmed from this review.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations in Country Selection Process</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The selection of countries to be assessed was not very methodologically sound. After further literature review, it seems a more representative sample could have been selected. Dr. Fabrice Rochelandet in his 1996 conference paper ' <i>Are Collecting Societies Efficient? An evaluation of collective administration of copyright in Europe'</i> categorized legal supervision systems in the following spectrum: lack of control, control at request, setting up control, permanent control, and extreme control. <a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31">[31]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rochelandet (1996) identifies UK as having 'control at request' since decisions surrounding operations are generally left up to the CMO themselves, exemplified by the freedom to develop their own functioning and code of practices, which then must be approved. Control at request is also demonstrated by rights-holder members ability to procure certain documentation upon request, and call upon the tribunals for dispute resolution if desired.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Using this taxonomy, India would likely span across 'setting up control', 'control at request', and possibly 'permanent control'. Setting up control is fitting since the 2012 Copyright Amendment mandates the registration of any organization in the business of issuing and granting licenses for underlying musical works (composition and lyrics) as a 'copyright society'. Typically this requires extensive documentation on procedural and governance matters, most of which is predetermined in detail in the <i>2012 Copyright Act and 2014 Rules.</i> Permanent control may also apply since the Central Government has powers to cancel the registration of any copyright society and legally cease its functioning. Additionally, quite substantial regulations determine rate setting process and even calculation, as well as distribution of royalties. Lastly, control at request may also be fitting since similar to the UK system, an internal dispute resolution is legally mandated. However, any dispute can also be brought to the quasi-judicial Copyright Board if unable to settle matters internally.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States appears as if it would deviate from former examples of more involved legal supervision since it would likely be characterized by 'lack of control'. Few requirements exist regarding specific operations of licensing bodies, with the exception of rate setting for ephemereal sound recordings and anticompetitive consent decrees, the U.S. does provide a contrasting comparative system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although these examples do span across part of the spectrum of legal control, a future case study country could include one which mandates complete control such as in the case of Italy with a single state granted monopolist or New Zealand in which a single clearance license is offered to reduce complexity and transaction costs for music users.<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32">[32]</a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations of CMO Identification</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i> </i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Throughout the methodology design, one of the main challenges was deciding which CMOs to include in the review. Due to lack of in-depth knowledge of U.S. and U.K.'s music licensing space, the initial survey and selection included bodies irrelevant to music licensing specifically. Due to the ambiguity in India, all organizations who were involved in some form collective licensing were initially included, including private entities like Novex Communications, and the South Indian Music Companies Association, due to their seeming similarities in functioning. However, they were eventually excluded in the final review to include only those which have received registered society status, or are currently registered as such.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was also a lack of distinction made between licensing bodies specifically managing underlying works like music composition and lyrics, sound recording (phonographic rights), and performance rights. Although interesting insights may have been able to be drawn between similarly managed members and rights, the disaggregated rights management in the U.S. made these categorizations and comparisons challenging. <br /> <br /> Part of the confusion stemmed from the vast variety of CMO systems and characteristics. Ficsor (2003) distinguishes these differences from four varying viewpoints: the level of collectivization, rights' owners freedom of choice, scope of rights and rights-owners covered, and the freedom of CMOs to set rates and other licensing terms.<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33">[33]</a> The level of collectivization range in terms of representation, authorization, and even distribution of royalties/returns. The freedom of rights owners' have range in the ability to choose joint management of rights, or even which CMO to manage their rights -- assuming the option is not restricted by their respective copyright laws. The scope of rights and rights owners covered by a CMO varies from exclusively managing its own members rights, occasionally managing other members rights, and occasionally managing all similar members rights with no ability to opt out. Lastly, the freedom of CMOs to set rates and licensing terms range from free negotiations with the possibility of an arbitration body, to legally fixed predetermined rates and conditions. <br /> <br /> The tremendous variety of CMO characteristics and the lack of bright lines in defining control factors for this review's selection meant that major music publishers, music services who directly issue payment, and even content aggregators who collate and distribute works for a certain fee could have been included. However, the decision to include only those officially recognized and legally registered as CMOs enhanced the feasibility of this review.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations of Parameter Selection</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While reviewing the parameters for transparency, it soon became clear that there were several limitations to the information identified. These include heavy influence in its development from India's context and legal provisions, an assumed value in transparency for transparency's sake, lack of specificity when surveying 'ease of website use', overly simplified proxy for efficiency measurement, a relatively shallow review of the law, and lack of assessment of membership data. <i> <br /> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While selecting the comparative parameters, the process of developing a feasible transparency proxy may have been tilted towards the context and legal developments of India. This appeared to be the case when the first round of data collection was inconsistent with further reviews due to what appeared to be differences in the terms being sought - terms used in the Indian Copyright Act - rather than the substance of the content. This is indicative of how India's laws heavily influenced the development of the parameters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Exposure to mistrust and lack of data in the Indian context may have also led authors to a somewhat presumed ideal of transparency for transparency's sake, implying in a weak correlation between publicly available information, the more effective the website and possibly the CMO . However, Schroff (2014) noted that information overload could occur if a potential licensee is uncertain what they are looking for.<a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34">[34]</a> From an efficiency point of view, search costs may actually decrease if less information is provided upfront, but better presented in more accessible language and format to guide the user to the relevant information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following review of the websites for a list of members, it appears that a more fruitful parameter may have been the publication of actual works and affiliated creators, rather than only the rights-holder members themselves. A grievance occasionally raised is the lack of recognition of composers and producers within a song, since it is typically the singer (or in the case of Indian film music, the actor and the film) who the audience associates with the work. Thus, a full repertoire list could be a useful addition for Indian websites to consider.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The selection of governing directors as a marker of transparency may have also been influenced by India's recent concerns surrounding copyright societies' leadership. Although it is a useful indicator, private, for-profit CMOs which have exclusive membership does not necessarily have the same burdens of a compulsory collective licensing scheme in which representation is necessary. What may be more useful for members is ensuring a dispute resolution process is easily accessible so that any grievances can be taken up through proper channels.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Identifying a relatively simple proxy for effectiveness and efficiency was also challenging. Many CMOs in their annual reports highlighted figures such as 'administrative costs', 'operation costs', 'cost to income ratios', and other similar indicators to report expenses outside of royalty licensing, collection, and distribution. However, due to differences in calculations, a simplified proxy was developed to assess the effectiveness of their core purpose of royalty distribution. However, this calculation does not account for absolute sums, year on year growth, taxation, and other non-monetary benefits. In addition, the differing years, geographies, and class of works makes comparison not very methodologically sound.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The authors had initially included 'ease of website use' as part of the review. However, this parameter was not very clearly developed and defined, and thus reviewed subjectively by different research assistants with varying assessments. Nevertheless, closer attention was paid to web design and user interface to enable greater efficiency in searching for relevant information. Future assessments could measure the number of clicks or amount of time it takes to find a certain piece of oft-sought information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assessment of each country's relevant laws was based on whether reporting the information online was mandated by law. However, throughout the exercise it soon became clear that beyond reporting standards, more interesting distinctions such as the level of control and specificity to which the law sought to determine functioning and operations of the CMOs. Although this was briefly touched upon throughout the review, further research should be explored in this area.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lastly, data the authors did not seek due to logistical limitations were membership-exclusive information. Recent complaints about royalties of streaming services have resulted in the publishing of <br /> numerous HFA and SoundExchange royalty reports by their rights-owners. These reports outline the services and songs from which they have received their royalties, allowing for more informed debate and discussion of royalty payouts and business models of the various digital services. Ongoing research surrounding copyright management in India have found that detailed reports on how royalty was calculated, or from which works/services they were generated are often absent upon receipt of their royalty cheques.</p>
<p><b>CONCLUSIONS <br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite India's strict legal provisions and control regarding registration, operations, rate setting, and reporting, it appears there is little enforcement and even less compliance, particularly by Phonographic Performance Limited which failed to report tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, and its annual revenue report. The Indian Singers Rights Association published all parameters sought with the exception of their annual revenue report, leaving authors without data needed to calculate the percentage of distributed royalty. The Indian Performing Rights Association provided all information sought in this review, with an 84.25% of revenue as distributed royalties as calculated from its 2013/14 annual revenue report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Relative to India, CMOs in United Kingdom were regulated less strictly, allowing self-developed codes of conduct providing adherence to certain broad guidelines on operations and reporting. It appears the government only imposes rules in the absence of adequate self-regulation. U.K.'s Phonographic Performance Limited displayed all six indicators sought, with 83.9% as distributed revenues from its 2013 financial statement. PRS for Music did not make its members list and repertoire open to the general public, but did publish all other parameters with 85.1% of distributed revenues as calculated from its 2014 annual revenue report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To the authors' knowledge, the U.S. has the least operations regulation for CMOs with the exception of reporting laws for those issuing statutory licenses. Anticompetitive consent decrees also prevent partial withdrawal from blanket licenses to ensure non-discrimination towards select services. Despite relaxed regulation, BMI and SoundExchange reported all identified parameters, while ASCAP and HFA reported five, with SESAC only having four. ASCAP, Sound Exchange, and BMI were the only ones to have published their annual revenue report, with percentage of revenue royalty calculated to 90.0%, 89.9%, and 83.4% respectively.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is important to reiterate however that information transparency demonstrated by CMOs website does not necessarily indicate effectiveness. Though not necessarily the most accurate indicator, there appeared no significant correlation between the percentage of distributed royalties, and amount of information found. All three countries have recently, or are currently undergoing regulatory reviews and reform to enhance copyright management. <i>India's Copyright Amendment Act and Copyright Rules was </i> a response to allegations of corruption and collusion of copyright societies. The legal status of certain CMOs and other private authorized agents not included here are ambiguous. Though they seem to function similarly to private CMOs in the US, whether they will be obliged to comply with copyright societies regulation is uncertain. The United States' Copyright Office has recently undergone a major study of the music licensing landscape. One of the major grievances highlighted was the disparity between negotiated sound recording rates and statutory rates of licenses for works of composers and publishers for the rapidly growing use of internet radio streaming. This disparity is furthered by the aforementioned Consent Decrees. In early 2014, the European Commission had also adopted the Collective Rights Management Directive with the main objectives of increasing transparency and efficiency of CMOs, and to facilitate cross-border licensing for music online. Thus, transparency and increased effectiveness of CMOs particularly in light of the digital age are being made a priority within legislation; and hopefully, in execution as well.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Through reviewing other CMO websites, a few learnings were found which could be adopted by Indian CMOs for enhanced transparency and effectiveness:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Publish a full repertoire of works the CMO is authorized to license with corresponding rights holder information.</b> This recommendation stems from other CMO websites which present their administrable works in a searchable database, allowing users the ability to efficiently identify whether the work they seek to use are covered by the license.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Provide a platform for collectively identifying the due rights-holder of orphan works.</b> This recommendation was a feature found in several other websites which lost contact with the rights holder through failure to update ownership information in the case of rights transfer, changes in contact details ,passing of the original author, unknown inheritance, and more.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Guide new users and potential members through a more user-friendly designed page with simplified, accessible introduction to music licensing. </b> As exemplified by the layout of other websites, the webpage could be subdivided between information useful for prospective or current <i>licensees</i>, and prospective or current <i>member rights-holders</i>. Basic questions framed in accessible language can guide the website user to the correct information.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Increase clarity surrounding royalty distribution policies.</b> During the review, IPRS and ISRA's royalty distribution scheme were noticeably vague. Although ISRA noted the most crucial elements, certain details like how "reliable statistical data" were to be procured and calculated in the case of missing log sheets was absent. IPRS was even more obscure, noting their frequency of royalty distribution would occur "promptly, from time to time."</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Publish updated annual revenue reports.</b> This document is probably one of the key indicators of how a CMO is doing financially, and it is important that these are made available so CMOs remain transparent and accountable to its rights-holder members and users.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Clarify dispute resolution processes.</b> This is important particularly for those jurisdictions which do not allow much choice, if at all, between various institutions and rate-setting processes. Membership and representation would ideally provide and promote proper channels for raising and addressing grievances prior to seeking legal remedies.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Further Questions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although a few insights were found through this review, the numerous limitations indicate a better designed exercise asking different, more nuanced questions may uncover some more fruitful conclusions. Future research could explore membership-exclusive data, and how reporting is presented across CMOs. From a legal standpoint, a more detailed analysis of regulations across different jurisdictions may shed light on different international standards of transparency and reporting. Additionally, given that the highest percentage of distributed royalties were from CMOs based in the U.S., the correlation leads to the question of whether more relaxed reporting requirements, or perhaps a competitive CMO structure can actually contribute to increased effectiveness? Lastly, given the increasingly complex licensing environment and continued creation of rights due to technological innovations, the feasibility of this system to monitor and finance music should be questioned as well. Further research on alternative compensation schemes considering tax-based, or patron-based financing will increasingly become more feasible and important systems to explore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WORKS CITED</b></p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Agarwal, Devika. "After IPRS, PPL next to Claim It Is Not a 'Copyright Society.'" <i>SpicyIP</i>, n.d. http://spicyip.com/2015/03/after-iprs-ppl-next-to-claim-that-it-is-not-a-copyright-society.html.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Andrew. "Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations." <i>CREATe</i>, October 1, 2014. http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations.</li>
<li>ASCAP. "Ascap Clearance Express (ACE) Search." <i>ASCAP We Create Music</i>, n.d. https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Basheer, Shamnad. "Indian Copyright Collecting Societies and Foreign Royalties: Whither Transparency?," November 18, 2008. http://spicyip.com/2008/11/indian-copyright-collecting-societies.html.</li>
<li>BMI. "BMI Search." <i>BMI</i>, n.d. http://www.bmi.com/search.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet and Society. "Research Proposal: Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace.," n.d. http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcis-india.org%2Fa2k%2Fpervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF4hnAUXGIRMcUozZfs5QOFwvO55A.</li>
<li>FICCI & KPMG. "The Stage Is Set: FICCI-KPMG Indian Media and Entertainment Industry Report 2014." Industry Report. FICCI-KPMG, 2014. https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/Topics/FICCI-Frames/Documents/FICCI-Frames-2014-The-stage-is-set-Report-2014.pdf.</li>
<li>Ficsor, Mihali. <i>Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights</i>. Geneva: WIPO, 2002. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/855/wipo_pub_855.pdf.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Future of Music Coalition. "ASCAP - BMI Consent Decrees." <i>Future of Music Coalition</i>, October 3, 2014. https://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees.</li>
<li>Harry Fox. "Songfile Search." <i>Songfile</i>, n.d. https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/termsofuse/publictermsofuse.do.</li>
<li>HFA. "HFA Commission Rates." <i>HFA</i>, n.d. https://www.harryfox.com/publishers/commission_rate.html.</li>
<li>---. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Huang, Maggie. "Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music," December 26, 2014. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music.</li>
<li>IPRS. "Distribution Scheme As Per 17-5-2013." <i>Indian Performing Right Association</i>, 2012. http://www.iprs.org/cms/IPRS/DistributionScheme.aspx.</li>
<li>---. "The Indian Performing Right Society Limited.," n.d. http://www.iprs.org/cms/.</li>
<li>ISRA. "About ISRA." <i>ISRA Copyright</i>, n.d. http://isracopyright.com/about_isra.php.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Philipes, Richard Hayes. "How One Independent Musician Defeated BMI." <i>Woodpecker.com</i>, 2003. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html.</li>
<li>PPL. "About Us." <i>Phonographic Performance LImited</i>, n.d. http://www.pplindia.org/aboutus.aspx.</li>
<li>---. "PPL Member/Label Search," n.d. http://repsearch.ppluk.com/ars/faces/pages/licenseSearch.jspx?_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=6609527708771000&_adf.ctrl-state=17ajb42h7o_4.</li>
<li>PPL UK. "Annual Review 2014." Annual Revenue Report, 2014. http://www.ppluk.com/Documents/Annual%20reviews/PPL_Annual_Report_2014.pdf.</li>
<li>PRS for Music. "PRS for Music 2014 Review." Annual Review, 2014. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/About%20MCPS-PRS/financial-results/prs-for-music-financial-review-2014.pdf.</li>
<li>Reddy, Prashant. "Did the Big Music Companies on IPRS & PPL Collude to Deny Lyricists and Composers Crores of Rupees in 'Ringtone Royalties? - An Investigation." Http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html. <i>Spicy IP</i>, February 14, 2011. http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html.</li>
<li>Reid, Harvey. "ASCAP & BMI - Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?" <i>Wooedpecker.com</i>, 1993. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html.</li>
<li>SESAC. "Repertory Seearch." <i>SESAC</i>, n.d. https://www.sesac.com/repertory/RepertorySearch.aspx?x=100&y=22.</li>
<li>---. "SESAC Announces the Appointment of John Josephson as Chairman and CEO of SESAC," July 31, 2014. http://www.sesac.com/News/News_Details.aspx?id=2109.</li>
<li>Smirke, Richard. "U.K. Music Industry Sets Trade Mission to India." <i>Billboard</i>, September 4, 2014. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6243633/ukti-aim-bpi-trade-mission-india-mumbai.</li>
<li>Sound Exchange. "Sound Exchange Draft Annual Report 2013." Annual Report. Sound Exchange, 2013. http://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2013-Fiscal-Report-PRE-AUDIT.pdf.</li>
<li>Stopps, David. "How to Make a Living from Music." Creative Industries. WIPO, 2013. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/939/wipo_pub_939.pdf. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> FICCI & KPMG. "The Stage Is Set: FICCI-KPMG Indian Media and Entertainment Industry Report 2014." https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/Topics/FICCI-Frames/Documents/FICCI-Frames-2014-The-stage-is-set-Report-2014.pdf</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Centre for Internet and Society. "Research Proposal: Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace.," http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcis-india.org%2Fa2k%2Fpervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF4hnAUXGIRMcUozZfs5QOFwvO55A.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Huang, Maggie. "Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music," December 26, 2014. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music"> </a> Reddy, Prashant. "The Background Score to the Copyright (Amendment) Act." <i>NUJS Review</i> 5, no. 4 (2012). http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/01_prashant.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Smirke, Richard. "U.K. Music Industry Sets Trade Mission to India." <i>Billboard</i>, Sept 4, 2014. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6243633/ukti-aim-bpi-trade-mission-india-mumbai.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> IPRS. "The Indian Performing Right Society Limited.," http://www.iprs.org/cms/.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> PPL. "About Us." <i>Phonographic Performance LImited</i>, n.d. http://www.pplindia.org/aboutus.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> ISRA. "About ISRA." <i>ISRA Copyright</i>, n.d. http://isracopyright.com/about_isra.php.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> Agarwal, Devika. "After IPRS, PPL next to Claim It Is Not a 'Copyright Society.'" <i>SpicyIP</i>, Mar 30 2015. http://spicyip.com/2015/03/after-iprs-ppl-next-to-claim-that-it-is-not-a-copyright-society.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> Reid, Harvey. "ASCAP & BMI - Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?" <i>Wooedpecker.com</i>, 1993. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Basheer, Shamnad. "Indian Copyright Collecting Societies and Foreign Royalties: Whither Transparency?," November 18, 2008. http://spicyip.com/2008/11/indian-copyright-collecting-societies.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Philipes, Richard Hayes. "How One Independent Musician Defeated BMI." <i>Woodpecker.com</i>, 2003. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a> ASCAP. "Ascap Clearance Express (ACE) Search." <i>ASCAP We Create Music</i>, https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> BMI. "BMI Search." <i>BMI</i> http://www.bmi.com/search.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> SESAC. "Repertory Seearch." <i>SESAC</i>, https://www.sesac.com/repertory/RepertorySearch.aspx?x=100&y=22.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Harry Fox. "Songfile Search." <i>Songfile</i>,</p>
<p>https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/termsofuse/publictermsofuse.do.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a> PPL. "PPL Member/Label Search," http://repsearch.ppluk.com/ars/faces/pages/licenseSearch.jspx?_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=6609527708771000&_adf.ctrl-state=17ajb42h7o_4.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a> Reddy, Prashant. "Did the Big Music Companies on IPRS & PPL Collude to Deny Lyricists and Composers Crores of Rupees in 'Ringtone Royalties? - An Investigation." http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html. <i>Spicy IP</i>, Feb 14 2011.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> Stopps, David. "How to Make a Living from Music." Creative Industries. WIPO, 2013. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/939/wipo_pub_939.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> SESAC. "SESAC Announces the Appointment of John Josephson as Chairman and CEO of SESAC," July 31, 2014. http://www.sesac.com/News/News_Details.aspx?id=2109.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Although it is important to note that each work can only be registered exclusively to one society, so the catalogs won't be identical.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> Future of Music Coalition. "ASCAP - BMI Consent Decrees." <i>Future of Music Coalition</i>, October 3, 2014. https://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a> HFA. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> IPRS. "Distribution Scheme As Per 17-5-2013." <i>Indian Performing Right Association</i>, 2012. http://www.iprs.org/cms/IPRS/DistributionScheme.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a> HFA. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26">[26]</a> However, it is important to note the major limitations of these numbers in making any sort of conclusions due to data acquired from different years, varying geographies, without accounting for differing mandates and non-royalty collection activities. More reflections on this in the Limitations and Learnings Section</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27">[27]</a> "Sound Exchange Draft Annual Report 2013." Annual Report. Sound Exchange, 2013. http://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2013-Fiscal-Report-PRE-AUDIT.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn28">
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28">[28]</a> "HFA Commission Rates." <i>HFA</i>, https://www.harryfox.com/publishers/commission_rate.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn29">
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29">[29]</a> PPL UK. "Annual Review 2014." Annual Revenue Report, 2014. http://www.ppluk.com/Documents/Annual%20reviews/PPL_Annual_Report_2014.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn30">
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30">[30]</a> PRS for Music. "PRS for Music 2014 Review." Annual Review, 2014. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/About%20MCPS-PRS/financial-results/prs-for-music-financial-review-2014.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn31">
<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31">[31]</a> Rochelandet, Fabrice. "Are Copyright Collecting Societies Efficient? An Evaluation of Collective Administration of Copyright in Europe." Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2002.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn32">
<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32">[32]</a> Resnikoff, Paul. "New Zealand Invents the 'Single Music License' for ALL Performances…." <i>Digital Music News</i>, September 30, 2013. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/09/30/newzealand.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33">[33]</a> Ficsor, Mihali. <i>Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights</i>. Geneva: WIPO, 2002. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/855/wipo_pub_855.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn34">
<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34">[34]</a> Andrew. "Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations." <i>CREATe</i>, October 1, 2014. http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparative-transparency-review-of-collective-management-organisations-in-india-uk-usa'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparative-transparency-review-of-collective-management-organisations-in-india-uk-usa</a>
</p>
No publishermaggieCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-08-21T17:12:10ZBlog EntryCIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 1 - FEBRUARY, 2015
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsAccountabilityPatents2015-04-14T17:17:53ZFileDisability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations
http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations
<b>In the year 2006, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conducted a study on different national approaches to copyright exception for persons with disabilities. Over 60 countries have an exception in their Copyright laws permitting conversion of works into accessible formats for the benefit of persons who cannot read print. The scope of the exception varies, in terms of the beneficiaries covered, formats permitted, restrictions on who can convert, etc.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On June 28, 2013 the Marrakesh Treaty was signed by 51 countries, to facilitate the creation of accessible copyrighted works for the disabled. The treaty, however, will not come into force until 20 countries ratify it. India, in June 2013, became the first country to ratify it. In this report, we aim to provide an update to the 2006 WIPO study, whereby all relevant details, including whether the countries are signatories to the Treaty are given in a simplified manner. This is to ensure that the information is readily accessible in a simple and comprehensive table for all readers.</p>
<p>A consolidated list of copyright legislations can be found <a href="http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/index.jsp?tab=1" target="_blank">here</a>. See table below for the country-wise exceptions.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Country-wise Exceptions in Copyright Legislations</h3>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b> </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Legislation</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Scope</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Works Covered</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Formats covered</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Who can convert</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Marrakesh Treaty Signatory</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Ratified UNCRPD</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Armenia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 22 (h), Law on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the National Assembly of Armenia on 15 June 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who require Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work, except those created for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille and other special means for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Australia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 47A, 112, Part VB Division 3, 116A, The Copyright Act 1968 as amended up to 2014</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with print disability, persons who by reason of old age, disability or literary problems are unable to handle books or newspapers or to read or comprehend written material</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recordings of literary or dramatic works, published editions of literary or dramatic works,</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recordings, Braille, large print, photographic or electronic, sound broadcast</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>By body administering an institution assisting persons with print disability, persons holding print disability radio license</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Austria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 42d, Federal law on Copyrights on Literary and Artistic works and Related Rights as amended up to 2011</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Covers all 'disabled persons' however does not define who is disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works, which are not possible or it is substantially difficult on account of their disability for the person to access a published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any suitable format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Azerbaijan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19.6, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1996 as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed works, except those created especially for the purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Belarus</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1998 as amended up to 2003</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work other than those created especially for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Belize</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 83, The Copyright Act, as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who are hearing-impaired, or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Television broadcasts or cable programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise adapted for the special needs of the persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A body designated for the purposes of this section by order of the Minister</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Brazil</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 46.I(d) of Law No 9610 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 1998</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, artistic or scientific works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or by means of another process using a medium designed for visually handicapped users</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Bulgaria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 24(1)10, 24(2), 23, 25a(1) and 25a(2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1993 as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and analogous specialized formats</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works, except computer programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other analogous formats</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Cameroon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 29(1)(g) of Law No. 2000/011 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works published with the authorization of the author</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Limited to Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Canada</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 32, Copyright Act, 1985 as amended up to 203</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with 'perceptual disability' and 'print disability' which<i> </i>is any disability which prevents or inhibits a person from reading or hearing a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work in its original format, including disability resulting from (a) severe or total impairment of sight or hearing or the inability to focus or move one's eyes; (b) the inability to hold or manipulate a book; (c) an impairment relating to comprehension.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, musical or dramatic works other than cinematographic work and not where the work is commercially available in a format specially designed to meet the needs of a person with the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats specially designed for persons with a perceptual disability, but not large print books</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any person at the request of a person with a perceptual disability or non-profit organization acting for his or her benefit</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>China</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 22(12), Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published work and additionally applies to the rights of publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Croatia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 80, 86, 98, Copyright and Related Rights Act as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format required by the disabled person</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Czech Republic</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 38, Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works with the exception of computer programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Reproduction to the extent required by the specific disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Denmark</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>The Consolidated Act on Copyright, 2010</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind, visually impaired and deaf people, people suffering from a speech impediment and people unable to read printed text on account of a handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format specifically intended for those with such disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Dominican Republic</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 44, Law No 65-00, on Copyright of 21 August 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sightless persons and persons with other physical disabilities. However, only public communication if permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Scientific, literary or artistic works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No reproduction is permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>El Salvador</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 44 (d) of the Law on Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property, 1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and other handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>All works of the mind including literary, scientific, artistic, musical and dramatic works. However, mere public communication is permitted and not reproduction</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Reproduction is not permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Estonia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 19, Copyright Act (as amended up to 2000)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works made available to the public except those created especially for the blind.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille and other technical formats for the benefits of blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Fiji</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 185, Copyright Act 1999</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>People who are hearing-impaired or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Television broadcasts or cable programs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise modified for the benefits of the beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Finland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 17, Copyright Act, 1961, as amended up to 2010</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with visual impairments and others who, owing to the disability or illness cannot use the works in the ordinary manner</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published literary or musical works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Text readable by visually impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions. However, sound recordings can be made only by institutions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>France</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles L122-5 and L331-5 to L331-21 of the Intellectual Property Code as amended up to August 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Person with motor, psychological, hearing or visual disability which must be at least 50 % assessed against specified relevant standards</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format used to the extent consistent with the nature of the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons or organizations listed by the relevant administrative authority</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Gabon</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 33, Copyright Law</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with a disability including people who are visually impaired</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Limited to formats for "welfare purposes"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Georgia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 23, Law of Georgia on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille or other means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work other than those specially created for use by blind people.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Relief dotted print or other special means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Germany</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles, 45a, 63 and 95b, Copyright Act, 1965 as amended up to 2013)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>All works, except where the accessible version is available</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats accessible to the disabled persons to the extent required</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Greece</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 28A, 28C and 66A, Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters (as amended up to 2003)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and deaf-mute persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the disability and specifically required by the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Hungary</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 41(1) and 33, Act No LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (as amended up to 2007)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats designed specially to benefit the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Iceland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19, Copyright Act No 73 of 1972, as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and visually impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published literary or musical works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 52, Copyright Act 1957 (as amended up to 2012)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any accessible format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any person to facilitate persons with disability to access works including sharing with any person with disability and any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilitites</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Indonesia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 15d, Law of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Copyright, No 19 2002</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Scientific, artistic and literary works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Ireland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 104, 106, 374, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with physical or mental disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Modifications permitted to meet the special needs of a the disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Israel</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 28A, Copyright Law, 2007</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formatted to meet the needs of the disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any Not for Profit Institution where one of its objectives or primary activities is education, training or welfare of persons with disabilities, A Government Office, or An educational institution determined by the Minister</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Italy</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles <i>71 bis</i> and <i>71 nonies</i> of the Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, (as amended up to 2010)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability in the categories as defined by Ministerial decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the disability and only to that extent</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions, but could be set by Ministerial decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Japan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 33bis, 37, 48, Copyright Law as amended up to 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons and visually handicapped children/pupils</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works that have been lawfully disclosed and school textbooks (<i>for children)</i></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille, including electronically recorded Braille and Large prints</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found, Braille libraries and other establishments designated by the Cabinet order for sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Kazakhstan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19 and 16, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996, as amended up to 2012</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and persons requiring Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work, except those created in special formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Republic of Korea</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 30 and 34, Copyright Act No 3916, 1989 as amended up to 2013</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Works that have been made public</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions for Braille, sound recordings can be used only at facilities established for the promotion of the blind as prescribed by Presidential Decree</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Kyrgyztan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19, 16, Law on Copyright and related Rights,1998 as amended up to 2014</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons requiring Braille and Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, except those created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or those produced by other means for blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Latvia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 19, 22, Copyright Law as amended up to 2011)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work published lawfully</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats that permit a visually or hearing impaired person to use it</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Organizations for the visually and hearing impaired and libraries providing services to such people are permitted to undertake this activity. However, other persons are not barred other than by limitations imposed</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Lithuania</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 25, Law on Copyright and Related Rights No VIII-1185, 1999 (As amended up to 2014)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works other than those created in special formats for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>In any format that would benefit the persons having hearing or visual impairment</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Macau</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 65, 66, Decree-Law No 43/99/M of 1999</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and those who require Braille</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works and lectures by Professors</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or any other format for blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions on making copies on Braille. However, fixation of lectures may be done only by the Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Malaysia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Section 13, Copyright Act 1987 as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons who require Braille copies and persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, physically or mentally handicapped in other ways</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any published work, and television broadcasts</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies and copies with subtitles or other modifications for the end beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies can be used only by the Braille MAB Library, and for television broadcasts, bodies and institutions which the Minister has prescribed</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Republic of Moldova</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 22, Law of Republic of Moldova on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Published works except those created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille only</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Mongolia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 24, Law of Mongolia on Copyright as amended up to 2006</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually and hearing impaired persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any format that can be used by the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Netherlands</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 15i, 15c and 29a of the Copyright Act 1912 as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped individuals</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, scientific and artistic works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats directly related to the handicap and necessary because of the handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>New Zealand</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 69, 89, Copyright Act 1994 (version 2014)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A person with a print disability [as defined in Article 69(4)] and persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or physically or mentally handicapped in any other way</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For print disabled, literary or dramatic works and for others, television broadcasts or cable programmes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or copies with other modifications for the special needs of the people, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>A body prescribed by regulations</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Nicaragua</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 32 (2), Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1999 (version 2001)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually impaired people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Copies made using the Braille system or any other format necessary</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Nigeria</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Second Schedule, Copyright Act, 1988 No 47 (No. 42) (version 2004)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people for Braille copies, disabled persons for sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or sound recordings</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For sound recordings, only institutions or establishments approved by the Government for the promotion of the welfare of other disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Norway</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 17, 17a, 17b, 11, 53b and 12, of Act No 2, relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Etc (version 2005)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons and other disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any published literary, scientific, musical work, film and, any published film or picture or transmitted broadcast program , except any work which has been made specifically for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>For blind persons, any form other than a sound fixation and for the disabled, a fixation on a device that can reproduce the fixation.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions for the Blind, however, for the disabled, only organizations and libraries as specified by the Kind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Panama</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 47 of Law No. 15 of 8 August 1994</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind and other handicapped persons.</p>
<p>Mere public communication is permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any lawfully published work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No reproduction permitted, hence no accessible formats can be made</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions founds</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Paraguay</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 39 and 45, Law No. 1328/98 on Copyright and Related Rights</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed work</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another specific form for the use of visually handicapped</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions found</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Peru</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 43, 50 of Copyright Act- Legislative Decree No 822 of 23 April 1996</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another specific format to assist blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Poland</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 33<sup>1</sup>, 34, 35, Act on Copyright and Related Rights, 1994</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Disabled persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disseminated works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions on the format; any format which is required by the disabled shall be permitted</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Portugal</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 75, 76, 80, 221, 222 of Copyright and Related Right as amended up to 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind people and people with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille or another system for blind people, and formats directly related to the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Russian Federation</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 19, 16 of Law of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons needing access to Braille copies or other formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, other than those specifically created for this purpose</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille copies or other special formats for the blind</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Singapore</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 54, 261D of Copyright Act (Chapter 63) version 2008</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped readers</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary or dramatic works that have been published, and where the format has been published, it can be made under the exception that it is not possible to obtain the published copy in a reasonable time and at an ordinary commercial price</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sound recording, Braille copies, large print or photographic version</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Body administering an institution assisting handicapped readers, which includes educational institutions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Slovakia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 29, 25, 38 of Copyright Act, 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Handicapped persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats used exclusively for the needs of the handicapped people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Slovenia</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 47a, 46, 166c, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 1995 (amended up to 2001)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any work that is not available in the desired format</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats used directly to assist the disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Spain</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 31, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, (amended up to 2011)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille system or another specific method</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Sweden</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 17, 52f of Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Persons with disability</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary and musical works and works of visual art</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Formats that can be used to assist the disabled</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions, except for communication of any work to those with a disability, and making, distribution and communication of a sound recording, when the activity can only be undertaken by libraries and organizations as decided by the Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Ukraine</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Articles 21, 15, Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2011</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully disclosed works</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Braille only</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Uzbekistan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 28, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996 (2011 version)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Lawfully published works, except those specially created for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Relief-dot font or other means for blind people</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No restrictions</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>No</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>United Kingdom</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 31A to 31F, 74, 28, and 296ZE of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (2003 version)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Visually impaired people, people who are deaf or hard of hearing or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or published editions, which a visually impaired person has in their lawful possession and which are not accessible to him because of the impairment, television broadcasts, including those delivered by a cable</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Any accessible copy, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs of the beneficiaries</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) For making accessible copies of works that the person have in their possession, only the visually impaired or someone on his behalf; (ii) for making copies by approved bodies for supply to visually impaired persons, an approved body which is an educational establishment and (iii) for making subtitled or modified copies of broadcasts for supply, only a designated body</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>United States of America</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Sections 121, 110 and 1201 of United States Code -Title 17, as amended up to 2004</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Blind persons, or other persons with disabilities</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) For making specialized formats by authorized entities, previously published, non dramatic literary work, but not standardized, secure or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or computer programs, other than the portions in conventional human language that are displayed to users when the program is in use</p>
<p>(ii) For publishers, instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools</p>
<p>(iii) For transmission of performances of literary works to blind/handicapped persons, any literary work which has been published at least ten years prior to the date of performance</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) Specialized formats, i.e, Braille, audio or digital texts, exclusively for use by blind people or people with other disabilities</p>
<p>(ii) Copies of electronic files as described in legislation relating to individuals with disabilities. The copies must be used solely for reproduction and distribution of the contents in specialized formats</p>
<p>(iii) Copies are not permitted except transmissions specifically designed for and primarily directed to blind or other handicapped persons who are unable to read normal printed material as a result of their handicap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>(i) Activity must be by an authorized entity, which is non-profit organization or governmental agency that has primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind/persons with disabilities</p>
<p>(ii) Activity by publisher of print instructional materials</p>
<p>(iii) The transmission must be made through the facilities of a governmental body, a non-commercial educational broadcast station, a radio sub carrier authorization or a cable system</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Yes</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Signed but not ratified</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations'>http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations</a>
</p>
No publisherrishiCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to Knowledge2015-01-12T02:14:53ZBlog EntryNational IPR Policy Series : Comments on the Proposed Intellectual Property Rights Policy to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp
<b>On 13 November, 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had released a Call for Suggestions for India's proposed National IPR Policy. This is the Centre for Internet and Society's (CIS) submission for the same.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Submitted by CIS with inputs from Pranesh Prakash, Director, Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer, Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer and Amulya P., Intern. <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/comments-on-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp.pdf" class="external-link">Click</a> to view the PDF.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">I. Preliminary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">I.1. This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (<strong>"CIS"</strong>)<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> on the proposed National Intellectual Property Rights Policy <strong>("National IPR policy") </strong>to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. <strong>("DIPP"</strong>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">I.2. CIS commends the DIPP for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy. CIS' comments are as stated hereafter.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">II. Principles</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">II.1.1. The characterization of intellectual property rights may be two- fold- <em>first,</em> at their core, intellectual property rights, are temporary monopolies granted to <em>inter alia,</em> authors and inventors; and <em>second, </em>they are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. This dual nature and purpose of intellectual property protection is particularly critical in developing economies such as India. Excessive intellectual property protection could result in stunted innovation and negatively impact various stakeholders. <a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> It is therefore our submission that the development of the IPR Policy be informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and access to medicines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">II.1.2. These comments will evaluate the recent developments in the intellectual property regime in India and point out instances for possible reform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">II.1.3. These comments have been divided into five sections, dealing with patents, openness, open access to scholarly works, copyright, and negotiating free trade agreements in that order.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III. <strong>Detailed Comments</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1. <strong>Patents</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.1. <strong>Key Issues Regarding Patents</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.1.1. The key issues involving patents in India include compulsory licensing, uncertainty in software patenting, slow pace of examination of patent applications, <em>inter alia</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.1.2. CIS submits that the Indian intellectual property regime contains numerous safeguards to ensure that monopolies of intellectual property are not exercised to the detriment of the public and that the National IPR Policy should continue to reflect these ideals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.2. <strong>Software Patents and Dual Monopoly </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.2.1. Presently, software in India may be copyrighted and computer related inventions are patentable. CIS is of the opinion that this results in an ambiguity that could potentially result in a dual monopoly over the same subject matter. This ambiguity around the legality of software patents and the scope of patents on computer related inventions has existed since the Parliament introduced the term "per se" to section 3(k) through the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002, persisting despite repeated attempts<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> to bring about clarity in the law (the most recent one being the Draft Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions, released in 2013 by the Indian patent office).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.2.2. CIS believes that software is currently adequately protected under copyright, and does not merit patent protection. The software industry in its infancy grew by leaps and bounds in the absence of patents, and imposing twenty year monopolies is stunting the development of software, especially, in an industry where technology changes every two to five years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.2.3. Therefore, CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR Policy should recognise the danger of software patenting, and encourage the adoption of and development of alternatives to a strict intellectual property regime, for instance, Free/Open Source/Libre Software.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.3. <strong>Compulsory Licensing of Patents</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.3.1. CIS believes that the current regime allowing for compulsory licensing of patents in India helps achieve a balance between the two concerns of rewarding inventions and making them available to the public during times of need, of the rights of the patent holder with his obligations to ensure availability of products at a reasonable price by allowing third parties who do not own the patent to license the use of the patent during the term of protection.<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> CIS believes that such a balance cannot be arrived at merely by market mechanisms. CIS further believes that achieving such a balance is important for a developing country like India as we have special concerns regarding access to healthcare and access to technologies that will protect our national interest.<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.3.2. Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should continue to make positive allowances for government involvement in this space, through the compulsory licensing of patents in certain situations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.4. <strong>Alternative Licensing Mechanisms</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.4.1. CIS believes that government participation in the patenting regime ensures that all interests are taken on board and the social costs of patents are kept in mind. CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR policy should be formed after careful consideration of alternative patent licensing mechanisms that could help achieve a balance between the interests of different stakeholders particularly because as a developing economy we have greater needs for access to medicines and technologies to ensure economic development.<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.4.2. On patent pools: In the interests of ensuring development of technology and innovation while balancing the social costs of patents, CIS submits that the National IPR Policy should consider alternative licensing mechanisms such as patent pools which present an efficient legal arrangement to the different problems that arise when companies have complementary intellectual property rights and these rights are essential to new technologies being used and employed<a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. Such a licensing could be done with government participation to ensure standard royalty rates and standard agreements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.4.3. On tailoring patent strengths: Our patent system provides for a one size first all approach to patent terms. CIS believes that the National IPR Policy could suggest the adoption of a more studied approach to differential patent strengths that properly balances out the benefits of the innovation against social costs of patents both in the form of monopoly pricing and threats to subsequent pricing is required to ensure that our patent system is fair equitable and in our national interest.<a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.1.4.4. On royalty caps: CIS believes that the National IPR policy could encourage bringing back royalty caps for certain sectors as a means of regulating the market and ensuring that access to technologies is unharmed. CIS believes that this will serve the larger national interest and ensure technological development.<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.2. <strong>Openness</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.2.1. <strong>Free and Open Source Software</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.2.1.1. Free and Open Source Software ("FOSS") has emerged as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. There has been an increased importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies, as recently demonstrated by the Indian Government's decision to shift to open source software, in sync with the Digital India initiative.<a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.2.1.2. CIS believes that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc. CIS believes that this shift in open source software is necessary to keep our IPR policy in sync with developments in the digital world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3. <strong>Open Access to Scholarly Works</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1. <strong>Open Access Policies and Scientific and Scholarly Works</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1.1. The benefits of implementing an open access policy with regard to scientific and scholarly works are manifold. Providing open access to scholarly research will ensure percolation of cutting edge research into the society. It has been often argued that restricted access to government funded research is unethical, since scientific research conducted by government agencies is partly, if not entirely, funded by the taxpayers' money.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1.2. <strong>Government Initiatives Towards Open Access</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1.2.1. CIS believes that the steps taken in this regard by the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science to make scientific research publicly available by developing an open access policy are laudable, especially from the view of increasing access to research undertaken at these institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1.2.2. There are several other government agencies which have implemented open access policies, namely, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Institute of Mathematical Sciences. CIS believes that this is step in the right direction</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.3.1.2.3. Copyright is the key instrument to effect open access policies. CIS believes that the work should be appropriately copyrighted to allow for free and open access to any interested person.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4. <strong>Copyright</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.1. <strong>Exceptions for Fair Dealings</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.1.1. The 2012, Amendment Act extended fair dealing exceptions in several ways; to sound recordings, videos, to the making of three dimensional works from two dimensional works,<a name="_ftnref11" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> to storing of electronic copies at non-commercial public libraries, <a name="_ftnref12" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> to rights of commercial rental.<a name="_ftnref13" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While the Act touched upon some of the burning issues with regard to limitations and exceptions to copyright, CIS believes that it did miss out on laying down clear rules for issues like exceptions for educational institutions, libraries and archives which is currently being negotiated at the standing committee of the WIPO as an international instrument,<a name="_ftnref14" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> parallel importation of books for non-commercial libraries, and extending the current exceptions for education to distance education and digital education. CIS is of the opinion that while this was a step in the right direction the IPR policy should continue the trend of extending exceptions for fair dealing and should encourage forming general guidelines for fair dealings as it would help achieve goals of education and scientific and cultural progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.1.2. CIS believes that it would be beneficial if general guidelines for fair dealing were provided for. These guidelines must not take away from existing fair dealing exceptions under the law, but should act as a framework to understand what constitutes fair dealing. CIS submits that this coupled with support for the International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives<a name="_ftnref15" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> and for International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions <a name="_ftnref16" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a>would help serve national interest as it would help reduce the freezing effect by reducing the costs of using copyrighted work legitimately and ensure social and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the international instruments aimed at providing for exceptions and limitations for fair dealings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.2. <strong>Exceptions for Government Produced Works</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.2.1. CIS believes that the current exceptions for use of government produced works are far too limited and taxpayers must be free to use the works that they have paid for.<a name="_ftnref17" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the broadening of exceptions with regard to government produced works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.3. <strong>Compulsory Licensing</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.3.1. The Act allowed for compulsory licensing of foreign works<a name="_ftnref18" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> and put in place statutory licenses for broadcasters<a name="_ftnref19" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> CIS believes that this was a positive step that will encourage cultural and scientific education in India. CIS submits that compulsory licenses for copyrighted works help achieve goals of education, of scientific and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage compulsory licensing of copyrighted works in certain situations for the promotion of access to knowledge and information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.4. <strong>Protection of Authors/ Performers Rights</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.4.1. The Act allowed for protection of author's rights regarding storing of their work in electronic medium<a name="_ftnref20" href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> and for protection of rights of performers both commercial <a name="_ftnref21" href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> and moral.<a name="_ftnref22" href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> CIS believes that while this is in itself a positive step, there is need to ensure that such moral rights are not abused by authors or rights holders to stop discourse or to stop fair use and adequate measures to ensure the same must be put in place to avoid excessive intellectual property rights. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should discuss limitations to moral rights of authors and performers to make room for fair dealings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.5. <strong>Users Rights Regarding Cover Versions Of Songs</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.5.1. The Act allows for users to make cover versions of a sound recording required provided they comply with rules regarding notices and royalties. CIS believes that this is potentially problematic as even recording companies have acknowledged that the non-commercial cover versions help in increasing the popularity of the original and therefore help in the growth of the film and music industry and this new law could possibly stop individuals from making such cover versions due to fear of violating the law and therefore harm the film and music industry. Therefore, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should consider measures to provide more rights to the users in order to ensure development of the music and film industry; CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property and is harmful to all stakeholders involved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.6. <strong>Relinquishment of Copyright and Creative Commons</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.6.1. The amended Section 21 of the Act now only requires a simply public notice from the author to relinquish his copyright as opposed to an application to the registrar of copyrights. CIS believes that this is a positive step as now the requirement under the rules can easily be satisfied by using a Creative Commons Zero license.<a name="_ftnref23" href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> CIS submits that the National IPR policy should undertake similar steps to encourage the usage of creative commons licenses and thereby facilitate access to knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.7. <strong>Term of Protection of Copyrights</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.7.1. The Act provided for an extension of term of copyright for photographs to almost double its earlier duration, <a name="_ftnref24" href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> CIS believes that this is possibly harmful as it could lead to copyrighted works not entering the public domain for unnecessarily long periods of time and thereby harm progress in science and culture. In this regard CIS further believes that since the term of protections provided under our copyright law for all works extends beyond our international obligations, The National IPR policy should try to ensure that scientific and cultural development are not hindered by excessive terms of protection that go beyond the minimum owed under our international obligations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.8. <strong>Protection Of Rights Management Information</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.8.1. The amendment Act provided for protection of rights management information (RMI) and provided for both criminal and civil remedies in instances of unauthorised alteration or removal of RMIs.<a name="_ftnref25" href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> CIS believes that these provisions are unnecessary as India does not have obligations to do so under international treaties and there is no actual demand for these rights as it is yet unclear how these rights help authors or performers. CIS submits that these provisions increase the costs for users who want to legitimately break these digital locks to obtain accessible formats for the information and that so long as the rights holder does not have an obligation to ensure that their works are accessible, provisions such as these cripple creativity and stunt industry growth.<a name="_ftnref26" href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should help achieve a balance of concerns of users who want to legitimately break these digital locks on the one hand and the need to prevent digital piracy on the other.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.9. <strong>Intermediary Liability</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.9.1. CIS submits that due to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, there is a freezing effect on free speech on the internet as these rules are procedurally flawed and go against the principles of natural justice.<a name="_ftnref27" href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> CIS believes that such a restraint on free speech harms creativity and innovation, to this end CIS submits that the National IPR policy should ensure free speech is not unfairly hindered by rules regarding copyright infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.10. <strong>Criminalization of Copyright Infringement</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.10.1. Individual non-commercial infringement of copyright is a crime under Section 63A of the Copyright Act <a name="_ftnref28" href="#_ftn28">[28]</a> and is punishable by imprisonment which can extend to three years or a fine that can extend up to rs. 2,00,000/- CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property protection; CIS is of the opinion that the civil remedies available for copyright enforcement are enough for copyright protection and that the criminal remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957 function only to ensure that there are obstacles to free and legitimate use of copyrighted material. CIS believes that such provisions are harmful for innovation within India and impose unnecessary costs on users.<a name="_ftnref29" href="#_ftn29">[29]</a> Therefore CIS believes the National IPR policy should reconsider the question of criminalisation of copyright infringement and should ensure that any penal consequences are proportional to the act committed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.11. <strong>Concluding Remarks on Copyrights</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.4.11.1. In conclusion while India has what some call the most balanced approach to intellectual property law in the world today, <a name="_ftnref30" href="#_ftn30">[30]</a> one that balances both the interests of the author and the copyrights holder as well as the end user and the overall public interest, there is room for improvement as far as adapting to the internet age is concerned, especially considering the easy appeal of forming an intellectual property regime that is excessive and in the end harms all the concerned stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5. <strong>Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.1. <strong>Need for Transparency Regarding FTA Negotiations</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.1.1. India has lately been negotiating Free Trade Agreements with several developed nations, these are closed door negotiations and the texts of the meetings are not available to the public. CIS believes that these texts should be made available to the public to ensure transparency and to ensure all stakeholders know of any developments, CIS believes that public knowledge of the positions of various actors in any negotiation process will help ensure that such positions are taken keeping in mind the interests of all stakeholders and will ensure that any outcome from such negotiations will be in national interest.<a name="_ftnref31" href="#_ftn31">[31]</a> CIS therefore submits that the National IPR policy should encourage transparency with regards to negotiations for free trade agreements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.2. <strong>FTAs with Developed Nations and TRIPS Plus Standards</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.2.1. Leaked drafts of the European Union- India FTA negotiations have revealed that provisions on intellectual property protection were extensive and affected the pharmaceuticals sector, these provisions, if agreed upon, could go well beyond India's obligations under the WTO and under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. In fact, developed countries including the US <a name="_ftnref32" href="#_ftn32">[32]</a> and EU<a name="_ftnref33" href="#_ftn33">[33]</a> have tried time again and again to encourage developing countries to adopt standards of IP protection in bilateral or regional trade investment agreements that go beyond TRIPS <a name="_ftnref34" href="#_ftn34">[34]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">India has repeatedly indicated to the WTO that it was not willing to commit to an agreement beyond TRIPS.<a name="_ftnref35" href="#_ftn35">[35]</a> These commitments could include data exclusivity protection measures, ever-greening of patents etc. <a name="_ftnref36" href="#_ftn36">[36]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS believes that despite the growing pressure from developed nations regarding various FTAs,<a name="_ftnref37" href="#_ftn37">[37]</a> India must hold its ground and ensure that concerns about India's national interest and the difference in the development levels of the European Union or other developed countries and developing countries like India are kept in mind while negotiating obligations under international agreements. Therefore CIS believes that the National IPR policy should ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not acceptable to India as they will undermine our national interest and hinder development at the national level.<a name="_ftnref38" href="#_ftn38">[38]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.3. <strong>Shift from Multilateral Forums to Bilateral FTA negotiations</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">III.5.3.1. CIS believes that the trend of shift in negotiations from a multilateral forum such as the WIPO or the WTO to a bilateral or a regional forum <a name="_ftnref39" href="#_ftn39">[39]</a> is harmful as certain flexibilities are built into the TRIPS and therefore multilateral negotiations based on TRIPS will help pursue India's interests better. And therefore when possible, India must prefer negotiations at multilateral forums as opposed to bilateral or regional treaties, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should reflect the same preferences. <a name="_ftnref40" href="#_ftn40">[40]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV. <strong>Concluding observations</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.1. On patents, CIS submits that the National IPR policy reconsider software patenting, that encourage open source software, continue and strengthen that compulsory licensing and consider and study alternative licensing mechanisms as means to achieve a balancing of the interests of different stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.2. On openness, CIS submits that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.3. On open access to scholarly work, CIS commends the work done by government agencies so far and submits that the IPR policy should encourage open access to scholarly works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.4. On copyright, CIS submits that the IPR policy work toward strengthening and extending fair dealings provisions, supporting international instruments that strengthen fair dealing, encourage compulsory licensing. CIS submits that the IPR policy should work towards ensuring that protections for copyright such as terms of protection, intermediary liability, protection of rights management information, criminalisation of copyright infringement etc., do not harm other legitimate interests of users or unnecessarily restrict free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.5. On FTAs, CIS submits that the IPR policy encourage transparency with regard to FTA negotiations, ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not accepted as they would harm national interest and to encourage multilateral negotiations over bilateral free trade agreements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.6. CIS welcomes the initiative of the DIPP to form a National IPR policy, CIS believes that it is essential that such an IPR policy avoid excessive intellectual property rights protection and is formed keeping in mind goals of development and national interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IV.7. CIS is thankful to the DIPP for the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR policy and would be privileged to work with the government on this and other matters in these areas.</p>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> <a href="http://www.cis-india.org">www.cis-india.org</a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Interest concluded after the Global Congress on Intellectual property and Public Interest in August 2011 attended by over 180 experts from 32 countries articulate this position perfectly. Available at: <a href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf"> http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf </a> (Last Accessed:29/11/14)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Shashank Singh, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the Stakeholders' Response, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions"> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> N.S. Gopalakrishnan, Compulsory License Under Indian Patent Law, MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol.22, 2015, pp.11-42.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Raadhika Gupta, Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS: How Far it Addresses Public Health Concerns in Developing Nations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.15, September 2010, pp.357-363. Available at: <a href="http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10211/1/JIPR%2015(5)%20357-363.pdf"> http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10211/1/JIPR%2015(5)%20357-363.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Nehaa Chaudhari, Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools</a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> One of the measures along which we could have differential patent strengths could be the time for the invention to reach the market, see, Benjamin N Roin, The case for Tailoring Patent Awards Based on the Time-to-Market of Inventions, UCLA Law Review, Vol.61, 2013, Available at: <a href="http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10612849/Case%20for%20Tailoring%20Patent%20Awards%203-15-13.pdf?sequence=1"> http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10612849/Case%20for%20Tailoring%20Patent%20Awards%203-15-13.pdf?sequence=1 </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Sunil Abraham, Patented Games, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games">http://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games</a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p><a name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> See Nabi Hasan, Issues and Challenges in Open Source Software Environment with Special Reference to India, Available at: <a href="http://crl.du.ac.in/ical09/papers/index_files/ical-43_144_317_1_RV.pdf"> http://crl.du.ac.in/ical09/papers/index_files/ical-43_144_317_1_RV.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a name="_ftn11" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Section 52(1), the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a name="_ftn12" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Section 52(1) (n), the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a name="_ftn13" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Zakir Thomas, Overview of Changes to the Indian Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vo.17, July 2012, pp.324-334.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a name="_ftn14" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> See conclusions of the chair at the 23<sup>rd</sup> session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the WIPO, Available at: <a href="http://www.eifl.net/wipo-sccr23-conclusions">http://www.eifl.net/wipo-sccr23-conclusions</a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a name="_ftn15" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> For draft proposal of the treaty see IFLA, Treaty proposal on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Available at: <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf"> http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a name="_ftn16" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> See The Draft WIPO Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for the Persons with Disabilities, Educational and Research Institutions, Libraries and Archives, proposal by the African Group (document SCCR/22/12).Available at: <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_22/sccr_22_12.pdf"> http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_22/sccr_22_12.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a name="_ftn17" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> See Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a name="_ftn18" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Section 31 and 31A, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a name="_ftn19" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Section 31D, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a name="_ftn20" href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Section 14(1), the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a name="_ftn21" href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a name="_ftn22" href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Section 38B, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a name="_ftn23" href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> CIS, Comments on Draft Copyright Rules, 2012, available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012">http://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012</a> (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a name="_ftn24" href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> See Pranesh Prakash, Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012"> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012 </a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a name="_ftn25" href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Section 65B, The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p><a name="_ftn26" href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Pranesh Prakash, Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment</a> (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p><a name="_ftn27" href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Rishabh Dara, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, 2011, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf"> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn28">
<p><a name="_ftn28" href="#_ftnref28">[28]</a> Section 63A, Copyright Act 1957.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn29">
<p><a name="_ftn29" href="#_ftnref29">[29]</a> See Right to Share: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Copyright in the Digital Age, Article19, Available at: <a href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3716/en/">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3716/en/</a> (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn30">
<p><a name="_ftn30" href="#_ftnref30">[30]</a> V Premanath, S Sivaram, Intellectual Property Systems in India: Progressing towards Greater Maturity and Diversity, Available at: <a href="http://iimahd.ernet.in/users/anilg/files/Articles/Emerging%20IPR%20Consciousness,%20vikalpa.pdf"> http://iimahd.ernet.in/users/anilg/files/Articles/Emerging%20IPR%20Consciousness,%20vikalpa.pdf </a> (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn31">
<p><a name="_ftn31" href="#_ftnref31">[31]</a> Jan Wouters, Idesbald Goddeeries, Bregt Natens etc, Some Critical Issues in the EU -India Free Trade Agreement Negotiation, Working Paper No.102,KU Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, <a href="https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/new_series/wp101-110/wp102-wouters-goddeeris-natens.pdf"> https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/new_series/wp101-110/wp102-wouters-goddeeris-natens.pdf </a> , February 2013, p.16.</p>
<p>Monika Ermert, Lack of Transparency in EU-India FTA Talks Spurs Requests for Halt, ip-watch, Available at: <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/09/03/lack-of-transparency-in-eu-india-fta-talks-spurs-requests-for-halt/"> http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/09/03/lack-of-transparency-in-eu-india-fta-talks-spurs-requests-for-halt/ </a> .</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn32">
<p><a name="_ftn32" href="#_ftnref32">[32]</a> The current policy of the US Trade Representative is seen to be reflected in the 2002 Trade Act available here: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3009enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3009enr.pdf"> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3009enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3009enr.pdf </a> See HR3009.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p><a name="_ftn33" href="#_ftnref33">[33]</a> The current trade strategy for the EU can be found here <a href="http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152643.pdf">http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152643.pdf</a> .</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn34">
<p><a name="_ftn34" href="#_ftnref34">[34]</a> Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Available at: <a href="http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/ciprfullfinal.pdf"> http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/ciprfullfinal.pdf </a> , p.174.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn35">
<p><a name="_ftn35" href="#_ftnref35">[35]</a> C. Correa, 'Negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement European Union-India: Will India Accept Trips-Plus</p>
<p>Protection?', (2009) Oxfam Deutschland and Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Analysis,</p>
<p><a href="http://www.oxfam.de/files/20090609_negotiationofafreetradeaggrementeuindia_218kb.pdf"> http://www.oxfam.de/files/20090609_negotiationofafreetradeaggrementeuindia_218kb.pdf </a> .</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn36">
<p><a name="_ftn36" href="#_ftnref36">[36]</a> S. Sharma, 'the EU-India FTA: Critical Considerations in a Time of Crisis', (2009) Centad Working Paper.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn37">
<p><a name="_ftn37" href="#_ftnref37">[37]</a> Asit Ranjan Mishra, India to negotiate FTAs with emerging market nations, Livemint, Available at: <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RlJNxUXovjNVaRzQt9KXmO/India-to-negotiate-FTAs-with-emerging-market-nations.html"> http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RlJNxUXovjNVaRzQt9KXmO/India-to-negotiate-FTAs-with-emerging-market-nations.html </a> .</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn38">
<p><a name="_ftn38" href="#_ftnref38">[38]</a> Sisule F Musungu and Graham Dutfield, Commission Multilateral Agreements and a TRIPS -Plus Word: the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Available at: <a href="http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/WIPO_Musungu_Dutfield.pdf">http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/WIPO_Musungu_Dutfield.pdf</a>.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn39">
<p><a name="_ftn39" href="#_ftnref39">[39]</a> For Trends, See Beginda Pakpahan, Deadlock in the WTO: What is next? Available at: <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum12_e/art_pf12_e/art19.htm"> http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum12_e/art_pf12_e/art19.htm </a> .</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn40">
<p><a name="_ftn40" href="#_ftnref40">[40]</a> See Amit Sengupta, Do not trade away our lives, Vo.9, No.2, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012, Available at: <a href="http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/88/1047"> http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/88/1047 </a> .</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCall for CommentsAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsPatents2015-04-12T11:39:16ZBlog EntryInterviews 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 EntryWIPO: Scope and rights of potential broadcasting treaty clarified
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified
<b>This post by Alexandra Bhattacharya was published in SUNS #7796 dated 5 May 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read the story posted on Third World Network <a class="external-link" href="http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2014/ip140502.htm">here</a>. CIS is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Integral concepts and the options on the scope of a proposed broadcasting treaty, and the substantive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations have been further elucidated.<br /> <br /> The 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) completed its two- and-half-day discussion on 30 April of the agenda item on a proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations - a 16-year-old issue in WIPO.<br /> <br /> However, a number of member states (India and Brazil) pointed out that there was further need to tackle the technical issues and that there was still no clear consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The results of the informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) held by the committee's Chair have produced two tables based on Article 6 which deals with the "Scope of Application" of the proposed treaty, and with Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in the working document (SCCR/27/2 Rev).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is no clear consensus on most of the elements in the tables, but they are meant to consolidate all the options and proposals currently in place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 27th session of the SCCR is taking place in Geneva from 28 April to 2 May.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2007, WIPO's General Assembly agreed to pursue a "signal-based approach" to drafting a new treaty to provide protection for broadcasting organisations, to ensure that provisions on signal theft in themselves did not give broadcasters additional rights over program content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Results of Informal Consultations: Tables on Scope of Application and Rights</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The informal consultations have resulted in a table on the Scope of Application of the treaty which relates to Article 6 of the proposed treaty. The potential applicable areas identified include:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(i) traditional broadcasting [and cablecasting](wireless or by wire)(+pre-broadcast signal);<br /> <br /> (ii) simultaneous and unchanged transmission of broadcast program (simulcasting);<br /> <br /> (iii) deferred linear transmission of broadcast program;<br /> <br /> (iv) on-demand transmission of broadcasting program (catch up) and program-related material (to be defined); and<br /> <br /> (v) internet originated linear transmission (webcasting).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elements (ii) to (v) relate to transmission over the Internet [if included, only for traditional broadcasters/cable casters]. The Chair stated that there was greater emphasis on traditional broadcasting which included both wireless or by wire along with pre-broadcast signals. There was greater divergence with respect to transmissions over the internet with a majority position that simultaneous and almost simultaneous broadcasting should be part of the treaty. Some had also expressed the opinion that webcasting should be beyond the scope of the treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second table relates to rights for broadcasting organisations and is in the context of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This table includes: (i) simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium; (ii) Near simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium (to be defined); (iii) Transmission of the broadcast signal to the public from a fixation and over any medium (not limited in time) including the making available right; (iv) Fixation of a broadcast signal, reproduction of fixation of broadcasts, distribution of fixations (copies) of broadcasts, performance of broadcast signal in places accessible to the public [against payment of an entrance fee]; (v) Protection of pre-broadcast signals; and (vi) National Treatment when the protection is equivalent; reciprocity when there is a difference in the protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the presentation of the tables in the plenary, Brazil said that "for the sake of transparency", it wanted to state that the informal discussions were helpful in the sense that they had produced a "deeper understanding of what we are talking about".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stressed that it had tremendous difficulty in referring to the word "consensus", as many aspects were yet to be clarified. It underlined the need to see the discussion with a "grain of salt".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported the statement by Brazil, noting that although the committee had "grappled with many issues," there was need for a more technical discussion. In this context, it proposed that broadcasting engineering experts be invited to an informal experts' meeting during the next session of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Support for India's proposal was voiced by the United States, Brazil, El Salvador, Canada, and Colombia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union stated that the discussions showed that a number of delegations had expressed their support for covering traditional broadcasting and cablecasting transmissions. The most divergent views were with respect to simulcasting deferred transmissions and on-demand transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also said that there was a need to have more discussion with respect to elements (ii) and (iii) of the table on Rights. It added that there could be flexibility on element four if there was a good solution for two and three.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States was of the opinion that the "charts" that pulled out the multiple proposals on the table allowed the delegation to understand the key elements better and also to get some initial indication of the thinking of different delegations on those elements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It observed that there was general agreement as to the inclusion of traditional broadcasting over the air which is clearly within the mandate of the General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elements (i) and (ii) in the table on rights, the simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmission of signals to the public were essentially the proposal of the United States for discussion purposes, it added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago stated for the record that it would like the scope of protection to include traditional broadcasting and cablecasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China stated that simulcasting should be included in the treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Protection for Broadcasting Organisations: Exclusive Rights Discussed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second day of the SCCR focused on Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" which deals with the substantive rights envisaged in the protection for broadcasting organisations in the potential treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The divergence in views related to the scope and range of the substantive rights to be given to broadcasting organisations. This issue, along with the Scope of Protection (Article 6), remains one of the integral areas of the proposed treaty where consensus is yet to be reached.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A consistent concern expressed by a number of member states and some stakeholders' groups such as those representing copyright providers (authors, actors, musicians) during the session, has been the need to ensure that the potential broadcasting treaty did not infringe or curtail the existing rights of underlying content providers of the broadcast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As seen in the discussion on the Scope of Protection, the complexity of the issue was evident and member states were encouraged to work on a matrix of exclusive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations in order to both cement progress and also for better conceptualisation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[The current text of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" includes two Alternatives A and B which deal with exclusive rights to be authorised to broadcasting organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Alternative A lists fewer rights which include: (i) the re-transmission of their broadcast signals to the public, by any means; (ii) performance of their broadcast signal in places accessible to the public, for commercial advantage or using very large screens; (iii) the use of a pre-broadcast signal intended for them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights and includes: (i) the right of fixation of their broadcasts; (ii) the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts; (iii) the re-transmission of their broadcasts by any means, including re-broadcasting, re-transmission by wire, and re-transmission over computer networks; (iv) the communication to the public of their broadcasts; (v) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them; (vi) the transmission by any means for the reception by the public of their broadcasts following fixation of such broadcasts; (vii) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts, through sale or other transfer of ownership.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[India's proposal in the Annex of the working document is essentially based on the right to prohibit, if done without authorisation, the following: (i) the re-broadcast of their signal through traditional broadcasting means; (ii) causing the broadcast to be seen or heard in public on payment of any charge; and (iii) make a fixation of signal for the purpose of re-broadcast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Additionally, for this session, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan tabled a proposal (SCCR/27/6) in which a broad range of rights such as fixation and re-transmission rights are included.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[The United States has also included a proposal for "discussion purposes" which states that "Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission of their broadcast or pre-broadcast signal over any medium".]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair sought comments from member states on how to move forward on the issue, particularly with respect to determining the range of rights to be given to broadcasting organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, introducing the group proposal SCCR/27/6, said that adequate protection should be afforded to broadcasters, bearing in mind the economic investment required by them. It added that there should be the broadest scope for the protection to be enjoyed by the broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus stated that these rights have to be linked to re-broadcasting of any such content and with the broadcasting of the content in whatever form. It added that the exhaustion of the rights should be left to domestic legislations.<br />With respect to India's proposal, Belarus stated that the right to prohibit was not sufficient.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States stated that its proposal for discussion attempted to "cut through the debate on the scope of rights" and attempted to focus on a "single core right".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposal for a "right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission" focused on the need to address the fundamental concerns of the broadcasting organisations within the scope of the 2007 General Assembly mandate on a signal-based protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US added that it was suggesting no post-fixation rights at the international level and only for the protection of the signal. Any protection for post-fixation would be relying on the protection of the content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The right to authorise the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission would include the broadcast and pre-broadcast signal, it explained.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also noted that there had not been opposition to the treaty covering these elements during the meeting, adding that there had not been any consensus on post-fixation rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US further suggested an approach which could be either (i) based on the US proposal, or (ii) used the US proposal as a basis and included some version of post-fixation rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It said that there was a need for something that "we can all agree to in the international level".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India stated that its proposal was based on protection for broadcasting organisations based on a "signal based" approach in the traditional sense. In this context, it supported protection for simultaneous broadcasting in the traditional sense and not for webcasting and simulcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico was of the opinion that there was a need to seek "the establishment of general standards" and the discussion had to focus on general principles and not on the details.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this context, it supported the proposal by the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a similar vein, South Africa noted the need for a general signal-based approach and supported the proposal by the US which was based on a narrow scope of rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil also expressed support for the US proposal and stated that with this "narrow and simple" approach it would be possible to make progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It however expressed reservation about including other forms of protection other than for simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union also agreed that there was consensus in the room as to the right to authorise or prohibit simultaneous transmissions by any means. However, there was a need to focus on transmissions from fixations where there was less clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that there was a need to separate the discussion from fixation and post-fixation rights. There was also a need to be clear about what "near simultaneous" transmissions meant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU said that there was a need to also be clear about what kind of rights were referred to with respect to the right to prohibit.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada stated that a single solution to signal piracy remained a challenge and that it was attached to finding a minimum standard today. It added that there was a need to look at both pre- and post-fixation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also noted that there were different modes of delivery of broadcasts and there were a number of alternatives in the text. In this context, it would be useful to develop a matrix to further the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need to simplify the range of rights on the table was echoed by the US, Ecuador, Chile and Colombia.<br />The Russian Federation supported the approach in restricting rights in some way and to focus on agreements previously reached, particularly with reference to traditional broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that with respect to including additional rights in the scope of protection, there would be a need to receive corresponding authority from the General Assembly to do that.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It reiterated that a signal-based approach had already been decided and " if we are going to keep looking at every nuance, then we will not get anywhere".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran stated that the aim of the exercise should focus on the "anti-piracy function" and the function of the treaty should stop all forms of piracy. It noted that one approach could be an umbrella solution as seen in the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair proposed informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) in order to make progress on a matrix with respect to the range of rights and the scope of application of the potential treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns Expressed by Observers</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A number of observers to the SCCR representing broadcasting organisations expressed the need for a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organisations; however, a number of other organisations also expressed reservations with the current work being undertaken in the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) stated that it opposed the idea of granting any new layer of intellectual property rights for broadcasters that would make it more expensive and more complex to legally obtain access to and use of information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It explained that this treaty could create many problems for consumers especially if it is without very clear fixation rights, the rights in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, performances, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and other material in which there are copyright and related rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) said that they saw no compelling public policy reason for a new international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, because piracy of broadcast signals is already adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They explained that the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians, because it imposes an additional barrier to access to knowledge, especially to content in the public domain and that libraries have practical experience of such over-protection caused by multiple layers of rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EIFL and IFLA urged the member states to consider the costs to taxpayers and society, as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also expressed concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was of the opinion that the current language expanded the scope of the proposed treaty and was likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stated that the language in Article 9 envisaged fixation and post-fixation rights for broadcasting organisations, for instance, among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance and this was inconsistent with a signal-based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Secondly, it expressed reservations on the inclusion of "communication to the public" reflected in Article 9 Alternative B.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It stated that communication to the public was an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the "broadcast" or "transmission" of a signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, attempts to regulate "communication to the public" would not be consistent with a signal-based approach, which the CIS believes is the mandate binding on this Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair's conclusions on all the agenda items are expected to be circulated and finalised on the last day of the session (2 May 2014).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The remaining days of the SCCR focused on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives as well as Limitations and Exceptions for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-05-28T07:03:17ZNews ItemTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 27
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: This is an unedited transcript of the discussions at SCCR 27. We are hosting the text for archival purposes:</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul>
</ul>
<p>Day 1: April 28, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 2: April 29, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 3: April 30, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussion-transcripts-day-3.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 4: May 1, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 5: May 2, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-05-02-sccr-27.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-5.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Click for <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty" class="internal-link">WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty</a></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-25T04:50:59ZBlog EntryCIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.</b>
<p>This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-27-cis-wipo.pdf" class="internal-link">available here</a>. CIS statement is quoted in <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1994">Knowledge Ecology International</a> on April 29, 2014 and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/05/01/at-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters/">Intellectual Property Watch</a> on May 1, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee. <br /> <br /> That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.<br /> <br /> In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:<br /> <br /> <i>Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion. </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-01T14:27:48ZBlog Entry