Centre for Internet and Society

India’s telecom success story turns sour

praskrishna — 2012-06-04T05:14:28Z

Over the past decade, the number of cellphones in India shot up from 6.5 million to 900 million, a prime example of how an industry could exploit the vast consumer market here to achieve breathtaking rates of growth and, in the process, help transform the country.

The article by Simon Denyer was published in the Washington Post on June 1, 2012. Shyam Ponappa is quoted in the article.

But that success story is starting to turn sour as a combination of greed, corruption and incompetence threatens to arrest that growth. Instead of being an advertisement for India’s economic potential, the telecom story has become an example for foreign investors of the perils of doing business here.

It also serves as a parable for the nation as a whole, of how India’s dysfunctional systems of governance threaten to undermine the private-sector success story of the past decade.

"There is a danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," said Mohammad Chowdhury, an executive director and telecommunication specialist at consultants PwC India.

The first signs of trouble emerged in late 2008, when the boom was still at its height. In what became known as the "2G scam," an Indian journalist uncovered corruption and favoritism in the way that spectrum bandwidth — the radio frequency bands that companies use to transmit data — was being allotted to individual companies.

Accused of defrauding the Indian exchequer of billions of dollars and of accepting bribes worth hundreds of millions in return for spectrum allocation, the communications minister, A. Raja, and two senior bureaucrats were arrested in February 2011. More than a dozen business leaders also were jailed or charged.

But the slow response to the scandal has threatened the sector’s continued growth.

Last year, the Supreme Court canceled all 122 licenses that Raja had granted in 2008, even in cases in which there was no suggestion of corruption. Companies that had invested huge sums of money in India, many of them not even implicated in the scandal, suddenly found their investments under threat.

Norway’s Telenor, which is party owned by the state, stood to lose about $3 billion, probably the biggest foreign investment loss by a Norwegian company, Trade Minister Trond Giske said last month. "If it is forced to move out of the country, it would have further political implications," he warned.

Up for auction

But the biggest blow to companies came when the Supreme Court, in an attempt to foster transparency and fairness, ordered that all spectrum be put up for auction to the highest bidder.

The auction system had failed in many countries, including the United States and Britain, with companies often overreaching to bid for spectrum and ending up bankrupt.

Instead, India had decided — wisely, in the view of many experts — to sell the spectrum cheaply in return for a share in eventual revenue. That gave companies the financial headroom to invest in towers across the country and helped make calls affordable for hundreds of millions of poor people.

"There are very strong economic reasons for not auctioning spectrum in developing countries," said Shyam Ponappa of the Centre for Internet and Society.

To add insult to injury, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India recently recommended that the spectrum from the canceled licenses be auctioned for a minimum price many times as high as in comparable auctions all over the world.

It also recommended that spectrum now held by other companies be re-auctioned when existing licenses come up for renewal between 2014 and 2025, estimating that that could earn the cash-strapped government $50 billion in extra revenue.

A cabinet committee will meet this month to consider the regulator’s recommendations. But the industry is up in arms.

The Cellular Operators Association of India called the regulator’s recommendations "arbitrary, regressive and inconsistent" and said they would prevent the industry from delivering "on the government’s vision of affordable communications, rural penetration and rollout of data services."

Telecom entrepreneur Sunil Mittal called the recommendations "catastrophic." Mittal is the chairman and chief executive of Bharti Enterprises, which owns Airtel, one of India’s largest cellphone-service providers.

PwC India estimates that the recommendations will push up average consumer tariffs by about a third, meaning price-sensitive consumers will use their phones less. The biggest losers will be the rural poor, he said.

Indeed, investment in new telecom towers has stalled, and any attempt to squeeze more money from the industry will probably delay what could have been the next chapter in India’s telecom revolution — the rollout of mobile broadband services across a country where 85 percent of the population lacks Internet access.

"It is a huge opportunity missed," said A.S. Panneerselvan of Panos South Asia.

Vodaphone tax case

As the ripples of the 2G scam widened, a separate tax dispute with British telecom giant Vodafone also has cast a shadow over India’s image as an investment destination.

In 2007, Vodafone bought a two-thirds stake in the Indian arm of Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa for $11.2 billion, without paying tax. Vodafone says that the deal was conducted abroad and is not covered under Indian tax law — and that if anyone should be liable, it would be the Chinese seller rather than the buyer.

The Indian tax man disagreed. When India’s Supreme Court sided with Vodafone, the New Delhi government retroactively changed its tax laws and served Vodafone with a bill for $3.75 billion in tax, penalties and interest.

Governments around the world, including the Obama administration, complained that India’s tax laws were deterring foreign investment.

The telecom debacle stems from the government’s failure to set up an independent, autonomous and credible regulatory authority, such as the Federal Communications Commission, said former regulator Satya N. Gupta.

Instead, India’s Communications Ministry makes policies and implements them, its bureaucrats and ministers unwilling to surrender power — power that Raja is accused of abusing by changing the rules to favor his cronies.

Some experts say the industry has to take much of the blame, because companies constantly lobby for rules to be changed or decisions to be made in their favor.

Others accuse the Supreme Court of overstepping its mandate and entering the realm of policymaking. But Gupta says that was an inevitable product of the way the system was set up, that the court stepped in only because the institutions of government had failed.

"If the regulator was an independent and empowered body with executive responsibility, this would not have happened."

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a former information-technology and telecom entrepreneur who is now a member of Parliament, said India’s governance has simply not kept pace with the economy’s transformation.

"The government as an institution is still in the 1800s, while the private sector is in the 2100s," he said. "There is nothing in India you can do without going to the government for some kind of clearance. There is always government in your life. These two worlds keep knocking at each other."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/telecom-success-story-turns-sour

The International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles

praskrishna — 2012-06-01T04:29:36Z

This event organised by Max Planck Institute was held in Munich, Germany on May 14 and 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event.

List of Participants

Name	Affiliation
Mr. Olatunji Babatunde Adetula	Director, Nigerian Copyright Commission
Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa	African University for Science and Technology & University of California School of Law, Irvine
Prof. Michael W. Carroll	Professor of Law, Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Washington College of Law
Mr. Alberto Cerda Silva	S.J.D. Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Research Associate,Knowledge Ecology International
Ms. Vera Franz	Senior Program Manager Open Society Information Program Open Society Foundations
Prof. Christophe Geiger	Associate Professor Director General Director of the Research Department CEIPI, Université de Strasbourg
Prof. Daniel Gervais	FedEx Research Professor of Law Co-Director, Vanderbilt Intellectual Property Program Vanderbilt University Law School
Ms. Cristiana Gonzalez	Senior Researcher Universidade de São Paulo
Ms. Teresa Hackett	Programme Manager EIFL
Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty	Managing Director Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich Honorary Professor at the University of Munich Max Planck Institute
Dr. Zorina Khan	Professor Department of Economics Bowdoin College
Dr. Kaya Köklü	Senior Research Fellow Intellectual Property and Competition Law Max Planck Institute
Ms. Eniko Kovacs	Program Manager Academic Fellowship Program, HESP Open Society Foundations
Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif	Intellectual Property and Technology Senior Programme Manager International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
Ms. Mayara Nascimento Santos Leal	Division of Intellectual Property Economic Department Ministry of External Relations, Brazil
Prof. Lydia Loren	Professor of Law Kay Kitagawa & Andy Johnson-Laird IP Faculty Scholar Lewis & Clark Law School
Ms. Viviana Munoz Tellez	Programme Officer, IAKP The South Centre
Prof. Ruth Okediji	William L. Prosser Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School
Mr. Pranesh Prakash	Programme Manager The Center for Internet and Society
Mr. G.R. Raghavender	Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP & CR) Copyright Office Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development
Prof. Jerome H. Reichman	Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law Duke University Law School
Dr. Manon Ress	Director of Information Society Projects Knowledge Ecology International
Ms. Carolina Rossini	Senior Fellow at GPOPAI, University of Sao Paulo
Dr. Susan Strba	Expert and Author, Copyright L&Es for Education in Africa
Mr. Luis Villaroel Villalon	Director de Investigación Corporación Innovarte
Dr. Moktar Warida	First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the United Nations
Ms. Raquel Xalabarder Plantada	Director, Learning Resources Vice President’s Office, Faculty and Academic Organization Open University of Catalonia

Workshop Associates

Name	Affiliation
Lindsey Niznik	Senior, University of Minnesota
Peju Solarin	Doctoral Candidate International Max Planck Research School on Retaliation, Mediation, and Punishment, Max Planck Institute

See the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright

Do IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet

praskrishna — 2012-05-31T09:00:41Z

Pranesh Prakash along with Dr. Arvind Gupta, National Convener, BJP IT Cell and Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC participated in a panel discussion on censorship of the Internet on May 8, 2012.

The discussion was broadcast on Yuva iTV. See the video below:

Video

Click for the video on YouTube

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/do-it-rules-indirectly-lead-to-censorship-of-internet

Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

praskrishna — 2012-05-31T07:14:42Z

This event was organised by Digital Empowerment Foundation, National Internet Exchange of India and Association for Progressive Communications at Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated as a speaker in the session on Access to Internet: Right to Information.

9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. (Registration)

9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics

Introduction: Osama Manzar, Founder & Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation
Chair: Aruna Roy, Head, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) & Member, National Advisory Council (NAC), Govt. of India
Co-Chair: Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DIT, Govt. of India
Plenary Speakers:

Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Venkatesh Nayak, Co-convener, Secretary, National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information
Jitendra Kohli, Executive Member, Transparency International India Summary of the Session by the Chair

11.00 to 11.15 a.m. (Tea break)

11.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.

Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information

Chairperson: Basheerhamad Shadrach, Development Consultant
Plenary Speakers:

Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet & Society
NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law
Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Varsha Iyenger, Member, Centre for Law and Policy Research
Amitabh Singhal, Former CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)
Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Founding Member, Association for Democratic Reforms

12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
Working Session II - Internet Right as Human Right: Need for a Holistic Framework towards Universal Access in India

Chairperson: Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), Govt. of India
Co-chair & Moderator: R. Sukumar , Managing Editor, Live Mint Newspaper
Panel Members:

Subho Ray, President, Internet & Mobile Association of India (IMAI)
Deepak Maheshwari, Vice President - Public Policy, South Asia, MasterCard
Ravina Agarwal, Program Officer, Ford Foundation
Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights
Anoop Saha, Co-Founder, CGNet Swara
Shivam Vij, Writer, Kafila.org

Click to see the original

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation

Design!PubliC — Third Conclave in New Delhi

praskrishna — 2012-05-30T07:03:33Z

On the 20th of April 2012, the third Design Public Conclave, organized by the Center for Knowledge Societies in collaboration with IBM, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google and the Centre for Internet and Society, was held at the National Museum, New Delhi. The Conclave brought together thought-leaders and decision makers from the government, the media, multinational organizations and academic institutions for a conversation about transforming India into an Innovation Society.

Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Aditya Dev Sood, Arun Maira, Aditya Mishra, Sukumar Ranganathan, Bhairavi Jani, Ashwin Mahesh, Yamini Aiyar, Scott Burnham, Samanth Subramanian, Shanker Annaswamy, Ashok Alexander, Jeby Cherian, Pankaj Jhunja, Chakshu Roy, Ekta Ohri, James Crabtree, Theo JJ Groothuizen, Sam Pitroda, Darshana Gothi Chauhan, and spoke in the session on Participation, Collaboration and Innovation. The varied audience included representatives from the Planning Commission, the Embassies of Netherlands and Sweden, the American Center, the Ford Foundation, Premsela, DFID, PRS, Lirneasia, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Financial Times, Carnegie Mellon, Cambridge, NID, Asian Paints, Yes Bank, MTS, and many others.

The conclave began with three panel discussions exploring the relationship between trust, participation and innovation.

Participation, Collaboration, Innovation

The discussions touched upon different means to generate citizen participation in key decision making, including using social media, mobile phones and other technological platforms. These new networking technologies help create spaces for discourse, debate, and an opportunity for collective organization and activity. They also have the capacity to transform the agency and voices of previously remote societies. However, despite their potential to garner massive public participation, they have not really been utilized by most private, public or social institutions.

Mere participation is not enough. It is necessary to moderate the conversation and make respondents accountable for their comments, so that it does not lapse into a meaningless cacophony of anonymous voices. The challenge that remains, then, is to design a platform where both citizens and the government can engage in a meaningful way, without the barriers of language and literacy, and collaboratively arrive at meaningful, actionable solutions.

Imagining India as an Innovation Society

This conversation dove deeper into ways in which the necessary elements of trust and participation could be better incorporated in all the sectors of society in order to enable an innovation culture in India. Existing conceptions of innovation in India, including price-pointing innovation, and the need to move beyond this and create a culture that values systematic, routinizable innovation processes were discussed. When innovating in the public sector and designing systems and processes that affect the larger public, it is especially important to respond to the specific needs of the people. This is where avenues for civil society participation and the design of public spaces become especially crucial, as they function as interfaces between decision-makers and the public. Each panelist spoke about different aspects of this large challenge, touching upon user needs, education systems, intellectual property laws and methods of innovation.

It was clear, as the conversation ended, that a lot more work and planning is needed to even begin to articulate and come to a consensus on what an innovation society looks like.

Click to download the full report (published by Center for Knowledge Societies) [PDF, 2.18 MB]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/design-public-delhi-event-report

Design!PubliC

praskrishna — 2012-05-30T06:32:35Z

This is the event report of the third Design!PubliC organised in New Delhi in April 2012.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/design-public-report.pdf

Resisting Revolutions

praskrishna — 2012-05-29T10:28:17Z

Nishant Shah's peer reviewed journal article was published in Democracy, Volume 55, Issue 2.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/resisting-revolutions.pdf

Will the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?

praskrishna — 2012-05-29T03:46:23Z

By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.

This article by Margherita Stancati was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.

"I remember when Ustad Bismillah Khan" – a legendary Indian classical musician – "came to me and said that he did not have money to pay his rent," Indian Human Resources Minister Kapil Sibal recently told Parliament.

At the time, Mr. Sibal said he solved the problem by writing him a check.

The government hopes that changes introduced to India’s 1957 Copyright Act will allow composers and other artists to do away with such acts of charity. Parliament passed the bill amending the copyright act last week.

By law, producers are no longer allowed to keep all the royalties to songs, lyrics or other works of arts. Now, these rights will have to be shared with the artist who created them.

Earlier, "artists would typically give all the rights to the producer. It was called a work for hire," says Anish Dayal, a Supreme Court lawyer who specializes in media and entertainment legislation.

The amendments to the act means that "even if they want to give rights to producers, they can’t," adds Mr. Dayal.

The way the law phrases this is a little confusing. An amendment to section 18 of the act says that authors of literary or musical works featured in movies shall "receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis" with others who have copyright over the work (such as producers.) It’s not clear whether "equal basis" means 50% or whether it depends on the number of people with whom the royalties are shared.

The amended law also makes it compulsory for radio and broadcasters to pay royalties every time they air a recording.

The biggest impact of these changes will be on India’s film industry, especially on the lyricists and composers of Bollywood music, who have long lobbied for rights over their work.

Before the amendments were given a green light, Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar described the condition artists worked in as "bonded labor." Recently addressing lawmakers in the upper house of Parliament, where he holds an honorary seat, Mr. Akhtar shared a long list of cases of famed Indian musicians and composers who lived and died in penury. He named Shailendra, a popular 1950s Hindi lyricist, and Omkar Prasad Nayyar, a composer of movie scores.

For Paromita Vohra, a Mumbai-based documentary filmmaker, said changes to the law mark a first step towards making art production “more equal” by giving artists more rights over their work. "It’s about time," says Ms. Vohra, who last year made a film on copyright in the world of art.

"Those who have the money are more powerful than those who make the arts. The act recognizes this, it addresses a power balance," she adds, describing this as a "philosophical change" in the law.

But she says this alone is not enough. "Lawyers are good at circumventing the law," she claims. Still, artists willing to fight for their rights "now have the law to fall back on," she adds.

Stronger labor unions, Ms. Vohra says, would make it easier for artists to make the most of the new legislation. "When that happens, I think the law will be very helpful."

Not all were pleased with the changes on royalties. Adarsh Gupta of Saregama, a music production company, said the law is "extremely unfair to the film and music industry" and that it paves the way to litigation.

Other changes introduced in the act include tighter regulations on cover versions, including a clause that raises the time period after which covers are legally allowed from two to five years.

Critics say these restrictions are excessive and at odds with art produced in the digital era.

"This ignores present-day realities," Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet & Society wrote in his analysis of the amended copyright bill. He used the example of the hit tune Kolaveri Di, which was covered countless times. "The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars," he adds.

The act also removes copyright requirements for Braille or for other works of art adapted for people with disabilities.

What the amended law does not include is a clause that many in the Indian publishing industry feared may have made them redundant. The proposed amendment would have allowed non-Indian publishing houses distribute their books in India, removing the territorial exclusivity of local publishers. This clause did not make it in the final version of the law.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/will-copyright-help-starving-artist

Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-06-15T04:10:57Z

Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, and Society in Action Group is organizing a discussion on E-Governance. It is based on the theme, ‘Security and Privacy Issues’, and will be held in Ahmedabad, Gujarat on June 16, 2012, from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Registration is free and open to the public.

India has witnessed a rapid proliferation of the use of information and communication technology in the delivery of government services. E-government is seen as an instrument to simultaneously increase the efficiency, transparency and accountability of public administration and improve public service delivery. Consequently, this has transformed the traditional delivery of public sector services, this is known as “e-governance”. These developments have implications and pose challenges for privacy and security.

The right to privacy in India has been a neglected area of study and engagement. Although sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, India does not as yet have a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. The absence of a minimum guarantee of privacy is felt most heavily by marginalized communities, including HIV patients, children, women, sexuality minorities, prisoners, etc. — people who most need to know that sensitive information is protected.

Since June 2010, Privacy India in collaboration with Privacy International, based in London, has been engaging in public awareness through workshops and consultations. These provide a platform for policy makers, sectoral experts, NGOs, and the public to discuss and deliberate different questions of privacy, its intersections and its implications with our everyday life. The discussions have ranged from topics of identity and privacy, to minority rights and privacy, and consumer privacy. The workshops have been organized in different cities — Bangalore, Guwahati, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Goa, etc.

Agenda

9.00 - 9.30	Registration
9.30 - 10.00	Welcome Prashant Iyengar is a practicing lawyer and lead researcher for Privacy India. He will present who Privacy India is, and the objectives of Privacy India's research. His presentation will focus on discussing privacy in India.
10.00 - 10.15	Tea Break
10.15 - 10.45	Session I People as the Most Vulnerable Link in e-Governance Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Professor and Chairperson in the information Management Area at Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
10.45 - 11.15	Ongoing e-Governance projects: Issue with security and privacy Professor Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor - Center for Electronic Governance, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
11.15 - 11.25	Discussion
11.25 - 11.55	E-governance: What is it? Mr. Gopalkrishnan Devanathan (Kris Dev), Co-founder of the International Transparency and Accountability Network.
11.55 - 12.25	Security and privacy in e-governance with reference to the Gujarat Government Dr. Neeta Shah, Director (eGovernance), Gujarat Informatics, Ltd.
12.25 - 12.35	Discussion
12.35 - 1.20	Lunch Break
1.20 - 1.50	Session II Cyber Usages: Challenges and Dispute Resolution Utkarsh Jani, Advocate, Jani Advocates
1.50 - 2.20	Concern for privacy and security of the common man Dr. Mrinalini Shah, Professor of Operations Management at Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad
2.20 - 2.50	Security issues in e-Governance: A hacker's perspective Mr. Sunny Vaghela, Founder & CTO, TechDefence Private Limited
2.50 - 3.00	Discussion
3.00 - 3.30	Session III Securing the desktop through Virtualisation Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager East, CG & MP at NComputing Inc
3.30 - 4.00	Opening up Data and privacy Ms. Nisha Thompson, Data Project Manager at Arghyam/India Water Portal
4.00 - 4.10	Discussion
4.10 - 4.25	Tea Break
4.25 - 5.00	Discussion and Questions

Confirmed Speakers

Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Professor and Chairperson in the Information Management Area at Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Utkarsh Jani, Advocate, Jani Advocates
Gopalakrishnan Devanathan (Kris Dev), Co-Founder of the International Transparency and Accountability Network
Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor- CEG- IIMA
Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager- East, CG & MP @ NComputing India
Nisha Thompson, Consultant, India Water Portal
Dr. Mrinalini Shah, Professor, NMIMS University, Mumbai
Sunny Vaghela, Founder & CTO, TechDefence Private Limited
Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School & Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies

Please confirm your participation with Natasha Vaz at natasha@cis-india.org. We sincerely hope you will be able to attend and look forward to your participation.

Download the following:

E-Governance, Identity and Privacy [PDF, 253 Kb]
Event Poster [PDF, 162 Kb]
Event Brochure [PDF, 1618 Kb]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/securing-e-governance

Securing E-Governance, Ahmedabad

praskrishna — 2012-06-06T03:48:57Z

This is the event poster.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/securing-e-governance-event.pdf

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T06:08:57Z

The publishing industry seems to have got the better of the Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal. Pranesh Prakash's article on parallel importation of books is referred in this article published in FirstPost on May 25, 2012.

The move to open up the market for distribution of international books to competition has been successfully thwarted with the removal of an amendment allowing parallel imports from the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 that was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 May.

This despite the Parliamentary Standing Committee supporting the amendment on the grounds that it will increase student access to books.

But it could well only be a temporary victory for the publishing giants with Sibal promising to restore the amendment if the National Council of Applied Economic Research – to which the matter has been referred – should in its report (expected in August) recommend parallel imports.

The draft bill (which included the amendment) had created a furore in publishing circles last year. Parallel imports, claimed leading publishing houses, would destroy the industry. Read Thomas Abraham’s Death of Books published last year in The Hindustan Times.

While that remains open for debate, there is no denying the larger common good of faster and cheaper availability of books to millions of students that parallel imports will make possible. Ordering books may no longer be a click away if Flipkart had to take permission from the Indian copyright owner every time you ordered an international title.

In an article titled Why Parallel Importation of Books should be Allowed published by The Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash makes a compelling case for ending the distribution monopoly.

Underlying the huge benefit to students, the author says “Currently a large percentage of educational books in India are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition, the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an authorisation to import books—the licence raj that currently exists would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit.

“This is especially important for students and for libraries because even when low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.”

The article also argues how the business model of hugely popular site such as Flipkart depends on parallel imports to deliver books to its customers at great bargains.

Allowing parallel imports, argues the author, will dismantle distribution monopoly rights and help book publishers, libraries, the print-disabled and consumers in general. He also makes the important distinction between the black market and parallel imports, which is legal.

Offering a point-by-point rebuttal of the publishing industry’s claims of the destructive impact of parallel imports, the author observes “It seems to us that the publishing industry – especially foreign publishers with distributorship in India – don’t want to open themselves up to competition in the distribution market and are opposing this most commendable move.”

He concludes that allowing parallel imports will, in fact, result in an expansion of the reading market.

“It is mainly foreign publishers’ monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.”

Read the original from FirstPost.India

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers

Why this blocking di?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T05:47:20Z

In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.

The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.

Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.

The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Acting against unknown offenders

According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.

By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.

“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.

“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.

Carpet blocking websites

But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”

A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.

“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.

However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.

ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.

According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.

In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?

What is happening internationally

John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking

John Doe order in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. (movie 7 Khoon Maaf)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T20:09:27Z

This is the case filed by UTV Software Communication against Home cable Network and other uknown network operators. restraining them from infringing the copyrights under Section 14(1) and Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for its movie '7 Khoon maaf' and 'Thank You' and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) No. 821/2011

UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi
Prakash, Mr. Varun Pathak, Adv. ,
Ms. Avni Singh, Adv.

versus

HOME CABLE NETWORK LTD and ORS ..... Defendants
Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

O R D E R
04.04.2011

IA No.5384/2011

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CS(OS) No.821/2011
Subject to the plaintiff taking steps within one week, issue summons in the suit to the defendants by ordinary process, registered cover and through approved courier, returnable on 14th July, 2011 before the Joint Registrar.
The summons to the defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within four weeks of the receipt of the summons. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replicationand rejoinder within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy of the written statement and reply.
In case the written statement is not filed within the time stipulated above, the same shall be taken on record only subject to imposition of heavy costs.
The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims alongwith their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance which shall be also filed within the pleadings.
Admission/denial of documents shall be filed on affidavit by the parties within two weeks of the completion of the pleadings. The affidavit shall include the list of the documents of the other party. The deponent shall indicate its position with regard to the documents against the particulars of each document.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that without prejudice to its rights, contentions and claims in the suit, his client would be willing to explore the possibility of settlement by recourse to mediation.
The summons shall indicate that it is open to the parties to access the facility of negotiating a settlement with the other side before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the court complex. In case the defendants are so desirous of pursuing negotiations, it shall be open to them to do so. Such participation in the mediation shall be without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit.
In such eventuality, the defendant shall inform the plaintiff as well as his counsel of the same by a written notice. Such written notices shall be treated as consent of the parties to the mediation process.
The plaintiff and/or defendants may then approach the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for facilitating mediation in the matter. Any or both of the parties shall place the copy of this order as well as the written notice before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre which shall proceed in accordance with the rules of the Centre.
During the course of mediation, it shall be open to the mediator to join any other person(s) considered necessary for effective mediation and dispute resolution.
The Registry shall enclose the information brochure published by Samadhan the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with the summons.
The parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 14th July, 2011.
The matter shall be fixed before the court for reporting outcome of the mediation/framing of issues on 15th September, 2011.
The schedule fixed by this order shall not be interdicted by the pendency of the matter in mediation. IA No. 5383/2011 (Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC).
Issue notice, returnable on 15th September, 2011.
The plaintiff is the producer/co-producer/distributor of several movies detailed in the plaint including the film "7 Khoon Maaf" which has been recently released. It is asserted that the latest film produced by the plaintiff titled "Thank you" is to be released on 8th April, 2011.
The suit has been necessitated for the reason that the plaintiff has experienced large scale violation of its copyright in earlier films produced by it by several known and unknown cable operators who telecast pirated version of the films of the plaintiff on cable networks, violating rights of the plaintiff and causing irreparable loss and damage. A single telecast by the defendants and other operators would simultaneously reach several hundred thousand homes. As a result, the loss which results to the plaintiff is irreparable and cannot be computed in terms of money.
The plaintiff also complains that additionally the quality of the film which is telecast by these cable operators is inferior and impacts its reputation. Loss to the exchequer by way of collection of entertainment tax, etc. has been also pointed out.
Based on its past experience, it is urged by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that an investigation was undertaken into the business being run by the defendant no.1 and extensive positive information with regard to the violation of the plaintiff?s copyright in the plaintiff's film "7 Khoon Maaf", has been received. The investigation report obtained by the plaintiff has been placed on record.
It has also been urged at great length that apart from the cable operators who have been arrayed as defendants, there are several other cable operators in the field who operate in an identical manner to cause violation of the plaintiff?s copyright. The plaintiff is not able to establish the full particulars of these persons which have consequently not been placed in the plaint. Such persons have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos.19 to 50 named as ?Mr. Ashok Kumar?. The plaintiff urges that these defendants are unknown identities who would also telecast the unauthorizedly and illegally telecast pirated version of the plaintiff's films by their network without any licence.
The plaintiff invokes the inherent power of this court under Section 151 of the CPC to evolve a fair and reasonable procedure to address the peculiar facts and circumstances over the pleaded violations by the defendants including defendant nos.19 to 50. In this regard, reliance is placed on the internationally adopted "John Doe" practice obtaining in USA, Canada, UK, Australia and other jurisdictions as well as this country's obligation under the TRIPPS agreement to effectively enforce IPR rights of parties including those as in the present one. It is urged that a similar order deserves to be passed in the present case.
In support of this submission, my attention has been drawn to a judgment dated 14th June, 2002 passed in CS(OS) No. 1072/2002 Taj Television Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. reported at 2003 FSR 22 on similar facts, this court had noticed the following submissions of counsel for the plaintiff seeking a John Doe order:- 11. Mr. Anand submitted that conduct of various unscrupulous cable channel companies/distributors such as the defendants is well known. The aspect of channel is being illegally aired on the local cable networks has almost taken on a regular feature. He prayed that in the facts and circumstances apart from giving necessary directions be also given for defendant Nos. 7 to 20, in other words, the court may pass "John Doe" orders.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on Trade Marks Law of Canada in which it is mentioned that John Doe? orders enabling the order to be served upon persons whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff at the time the action was commenced, but whose activity falls within the scope of the action. This form of naming a party is considered a mere "misnomer", and as long as the "litigating finger" is pointed at such person then the misnomer is not fatal. This proposition has been taken from Jackson v/s Bubels (1972) 28 DLT. (3d) 500 (B.C.C.A.) and Dukoff vs.Teronto General Hospital (1986),54,O.R.(2d) 50(H.C.).

Mr. Anand submitted that ?John Doe? orders are passed by American, English, Canadian and Australian Courts frequently. He further submitted that this court also possesses enormous inherent powers to formulate the orders which are necessary to meet the peculiar facts and peculiar situations., In the first U.S. Federal "John Doe" order, Shaw vs Various John Does, No 80 Civ,722 (S.D.N.Y.Fe,6,1980) the court held that a court of equity was always free to fashion a decree in keeping with the needs of the litigants. Similarly, in Billy Joel vs. Various John Does, 1980 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12841 the Court held:

Were the Injunction to be denied, Plaintiffs would be without any legal means to prevent what is clearly a blatant infringement of their valid property rights. While the proposed remedy is novel, that in itself should not weigh against its adoption by this court. A court of equity is free to fashion whatever remedies will adequately protect the rights for the parties before it.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. The Court held that the inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore, it must be held that the court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature. Mr. Anand placed reliance on EMI Records Ltd . v. Kudhail and others (1985) FSR 36, (1983) Com LR 280.

Mr. Anand , Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has made references to a large number of Canadian, Australian, English and American cases but I would not like to burden this order with all the judgments on which reliance has been placed at this stage. Since ?John Doe? orders are passed in the court of Canada, America, England, Australia and in some other countries. The judicial systems of all these countries have basic similarity with our judicial system. Therefore, looking to the extra ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice the courts in India would also be justified in passing "John Doe" orders. It is noteworthy that after such finding keeping in view the peculiar facts of the CS(OS) No. 1072/2002, a John Doe order was not passed.
My attention has also been drawn to an order dated 24th November, 2006 in CS(OS) No. 2189/2006 wherein the court has granted an injunction order in terms of the above observations. This court as such has the jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of a John Doe order injunction unknown persons in circumstances as have been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following observations of the court in Tej Television (Supra) in the context of cable operators:-
I have carefully considered the relevant documents, averments of the application and judgments of various courts. Undoubtedly, the cable operators in India have a long history of violating copyrights. A very large number of court orders are testimony to this. The cable operators are encouraged owning to the unique nature of cable piracy and the unstructured nature of the cable industry, the speed with which any trace of infringement can be erased by the cable operators, enforcement of rights in conservative nature is unlikely to effectively redress the plaintiffs' grievance.
The plaintiff has approached this court seeking protection of its valuable rights against such unwarranted, unauthorized and illegal actions of the defendants nos. 1 to 18 as well as the Mr. Ashok Kumars arrayed as defendant nos. 19 to 50 which have violated and diluted the exclusive copyright vested with the plaintiff in respect of the films "7 Khoon Maaf". The plaintiff has expressed apprehensions that the defendants would violate the plaintiff's rights in its film "Thank You".
The plaintiff has asserted violation of its rights and violations of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Cable Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 before this court. The material placed before this court would show that the plaintiff has copyright in the films produced by it and only authorized licensees can telecast the films.
The plaintiff has specifically averred that the defendants in the suit have not signed any agreement with regard to the film. As such telecast of these films is violative of section 14(1)(d) and 16 of the Copyright Act.
It is urged that unauthorized cable transmission of the plaintiff's films shall result in irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff. It would also encourage other cable operators who have currently procured licenses/entered into agreements with the plaintiff and possess valid license/agreements, to also telecast the films without making necessary payments. In support of the grievance that the damage would be irreparable, it is pointed out that the cable industry has an unstructured composition and it would be impossible to assess the damages which may result on account of unauthorized telecast/broadcast/distribution.
The modus operandi adopted by unauthorized cable operators is to prepare poor copies of the films when they are being screened in the picture hall and telecast the same on their network to cable homes attached to them. It would appear that public interest would also suffer on account of poor programme quality. There is prima facie substance in the plaintiff's contention that the same would impact the plaintiffs reputation as well.
In view of the foregoing, it would prima facie appear that unlicensed broadcast of the reproduction rights vested in the plaintiff by telecasting the plaintiff's films "7 Khoon Maaf" and the forthcoming film "Thank You" in the foregoing manner is illegal, unfair and deserves to be prohibited. Consequently, unless injunction as prayed for is granted by this court, the business of the plaintiff herein would be irreparably impacted. Balance of convenience and interest of justice are in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
It is accordingly directed as follows :-
(i) that the defendants/their agents, representatives, franchisees, sub-operators, head ends and/or anyone claiming under them are hereby restrained from telecasting or in any other manner communicating to the viewing pubic/subscribers either by means of wireless diffusion or by wire a pirated version of the films "7 Khoon Maaf" and "Thank You" and/or in any other manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff therein.
(ii) It is further directed that till the present order is vacated or modified, the direction shall operate against the defendants, their agents,representatives, franchises, sub-operators or any person claiming under them an injunction.
(iii) Further injunction in terms of serial no. (i) above is passed against un-named and undisclosed persons who may be likewise committing breach of the rights of the plaintiff in a similar manner.
(iv) The SHO/Superintendent of the concerned police station(s) are directed to render assistance to the plaintiff should any be required for purposes of enforcement of the present order as it is the obligation of the police authorities and the State to enforce judicial orders passed.
(v) The plaintiff is permitted to publish the John Doe injunction order issued today in local newspapers in all states where it has expressed apprehensions of violation of its rights. Consequences in accordance with law would thereafter follow.
(vi) The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of the proviso to rule 3 of order 39 of the CPC within a period of ten days from today.

Copy of this order be given dasti as well as dasti under the signatures of the court master of this court.

GITA MITTAL, J
APRIL 04, 2011

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-utv-communications-v.-home-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-7-khoon-maaf

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T10:03:52Z

This is the case filed by Reliance Big Entertainment, producer of movie 'Boduguard' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown network operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

20.07.2011
Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi and Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advs. for the Plaintiff.

I.A. No. 11242/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Exemption allowed, subject to filing of original documents, as mentioned in the application, by the plaintiff within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 11243/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Allowed, subject to all just exemptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 1724/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 30th September, 2011.
I.A. No. 11241/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Singham". Plaintiff apprehends that the said movie will be copied and DVDs/CDs thereof will be prepared, distributed in the market as also shown on TV by the cable operators, thereby causing huge financial losses to the plaintiff. In case the film is shown on cable and internet, by the persons who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to see the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. It is contended that copying and distributing the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCD, etc., by such unscrupulous persons has been noticed in respect of new releases in recent past. Such films are shown by the cable operators. It is further contended that plaintiff is able to find out the names of defendant nos. 1 to 5 who had been indulging in such activities. Apart from them, many unknown persons may also indulge in similar activity. Since names and addresses of such cable operators/persons are not known, they have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name of "Mr. Ashok Kumar". It is contended that in this regard "John Doe", practice may have to be resorted which is well recognized not only in United States of America, Canada, England and Australia but also in India. Reliance has been placed on Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 and order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors.

Perusal of the orders, reliance whereupon has been placed by the plaintiff, shows that such unknown unauthorized persons can be arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 and "John Doe" order may be passed against such persons enabling plaintiff to serve order upon such persons when their identity is disclosed. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray disc and distributing the same has also been recognized in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a prima facie case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Singham" which is yet to be released. In case, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD are made by unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "Singham" in any manner without proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Singham" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
July 20, 2011

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T04:17:46Z

Following the highly successful Internet at Liberty 2010, activists and experts from around the world converged on May 23-24 to explore the most pressing dilemmas and exciting opportunities around free expression in the digital age.

The Internet as a global, free, and open resource, is constantly developing. Over the past year we have seen how the Internet can shift power, broaden scope, and accelerate political and economic change. Simultaneously, governments and multinational companies shape what is possible online. Today, more than any time in history, technological and political forces are colliding to draw lines about how the Internet functions.

Internet at Liberty 2012, sponsored by Google, brought together global activists and representatives of academic centers, corporations, governments, the media and NGOs. The conference explored ways to expand the free flow of information online. Look for debates about today's most pressing internet freedom issues, and action-oriented workshops.

Agenda

= streamed live on the CitizenTube YouTube channel at youtube.com/citizentube

May 23, 2012

8:30 a.m.	Registration & Breakfast
9:30 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.	Welcome & Introduction
10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.	Plenary I Debate 1: Should laws and regulations that affect the Internet favor individuals over the state? Speakers: John Kampfner - Author and historian Noomane Fehri - Tunisian National Constitutional Assembly Renata Avila - Lawyer and Advocate for Transparency, Global Voices Stewart Baker - Former Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security Susan Glasser - Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy
11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m	Break
11:45 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.	Break-out Discussions
1.00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.	Lunch
2:15 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.	Workshop I Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
3:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.	Afternoon Break Research Displays
4:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.	Plenary II Debate 2: Is the Internet--and global communication among citizens--best served by today's organic mix of governing forces, or do we need a more centralized, global system? Speaker: Ben Wagner - European University Institute Gary Fowlie - Head, ITU Liaison Office to the United Nations Riz Khan (Moderator) - Reporter, Al Jazeera English
5:45 p.m. - 7.00 p.m.	Reception Research Displays
7.00 p.m.	Dinner Keynote Panel Speaker: Riz Khan - International Journalist, Television Host, Author at Al Jazeera English Sana Saleem Chiranuch “Jiew” Premchaiporn

See the original agenda in Google News

May 24, 2012

8:30 a.m. - 9.00 a.m	Registration & Breakfast
9.00 a.m. - 10.00 a.m.	Plenary III Research Lightning Round Speaker: Guy Berger, Mapping Digital Media Around the World Jeffrey Ghannam, Digital Media After the Arab Spring Katrin Verclas, Mobile Monitor Nadim Kobeissi, Securing Private Networks with Cryptocat Lucas Dixon, DDOS Protection Sarah Kendzior, The Impact of Social Media in Azerbaijan Claudio Ruiz, Freedom of Expression in Chile Christopher Fabian, uReport: UNICEF Innovations Nicklas Lunblad, Internet Freedom as Economics Issue Zeynep Tufekci
10.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.	Morning Break Research Displays
11.00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.	Workshop II Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social Media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
	Lunch
1.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m.	Plenary IV Debate 3: In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom? Speaker: Sunil Abraham - Centre for Internet and Society Cynthia Wong - Center for Democracy and Technology Mohamed El Dahshan - writer, journalist Dunja Mijatović - OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Judy Woodruff (Moderator) - Senior Correspondent, PBS Newshour
3.00 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.	Closing Session

See the original agenda in Google News

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/internet-at-liberty-2012

Centre for Internet and Society

India’s telecom success story turns sour

Up for auction

Vodaphone tax case

The International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles

List of Participants

Workshop Associates

Do IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet

Video

Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics

Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information

Design!PubliC — Third Conclave in New Delhi

Participation, Collaboration, Innovation

Imagining India as an Innovation Society

Design!PubliC

Resisting Revolutions

Will the Copyright Law Help the Starving Artist?

Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy

Agenda

Session I

Session II

Session III

Confirmed Speakers

Download the following:

Securing E-Governance, Ahmedabad

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?

Why this blocking di?

Acting against unknown offenders

Carpet blocking websites

What is happening internationally

John Doe order in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. (movie 7 Khoon Maaf)

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

Agenda

Registration & Breakfast

Welcome & Introduction

Plenary I

Break

Break-out Discussions

Lunch

Workshop I

Afternoon Break

Plenary II

Reception

Dinner

Plenary III

Workshop II

Lunch

Plenary IV

Closing Session