Centre for Internet and Society

Workshop on Set-top Boxes

sinha — 2016-06-24T15:13:22Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is organising a one-day workshop in Delhi on Tuesday, July 12 on the evolution and state of the set-top box as an access device in India.

The workshop will be conducted by Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra who is a professor at Sharda University. It will be supported by an advisor from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to cover the aspect of regulation. The workshop will focus on the expanding functionality and innovations in set-top box (STB) technologies. It will also include an exposition on the regulatory regime applicable to STBs, around issues of interoperability, competition and privacy, and conclude with an outlook on the future of STBs.

We will initiate research collaborations with suitable participants to produce papers after the workshop. Certificates of participation will be provided.

Apply

There are limited spots for participants. Please state your interest by filling out this form here- http://goo.gl/forms/Mj77h0nkeVBJgHJn2 The deadline for filling application is July 5, 2016.

Fee and Funding

There is no registration fee for the workshop. Participants will be served lunch and refreshments at the venue. Please note that there is no funding for travel and accommodation.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/events/workshop-set-top-boxes

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-10T14:38:48Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

Mr. Chair we would like to congratulate you and the vice-chair on your election.

The current draft text of the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations treaty carries a rather weak framework of limitations and exceptions, when we consider the long duration of protection of twenty years that has been proposed.

The limitations and exceptions are not aligned to the ongoing discussions on the L&E agenda, where there is an agreement evolving amongst many member states to revisit and revise limitations and exceptions for purposes of preservation, online and cross-border uses, and research for benefit of education, research, libraries, archives and museums.

The framework does not rise to these standards, and also makes enacting of limitations and exceptions in national law optional.

Seen from this perspective, the draft text of the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations treaty is neither a balanced treaty nor a modern one.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-agenda-item

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-12T08:41:01Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic, which will endure in the long term as well.

In India, researchers at public and private institutions in both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021, submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research collaborations.

At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.

We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward laid in the Proposal.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item

WIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item

sinha — 2021-06-29T13:19:47Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 1 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

In the Asia-Pacific region, where there exists a deep digital divide in many countries, radio and TV broadcasting was instrumental in meeting quality education requirements during the pandemic. It would be invaluable and forward-looking for an international broadcasting treaty to have adequate limitations and exceptions for another emergency scenario such as COVID019. I urge the Committee to deliberate more deeply on this aspect.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis

WIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

sinha — 2021-06-29T13:20:59Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session, on the limitations and exceptions agenda item.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

The pandemic has hit the world hard, and developing countries even harder. The committee should urgently lead the way on developing concrete solutions in the domain of limitations and exceptions that are timely and meaningful. Useful suggestions have already been offered by member states in the nature of tools that could enhance cross-border cooperation and international norm setting. This could take the form of guidelines, model laws, and the like.

Further, the regional consultations should have proper representation and give proper weightage to views of beneficiaries of this agenda item. WIPO should also plan to institute measures to enable proper participation, in view of the digital divide

It should further be borne in mind that there exists wide socio-economic disparity in the region, and there has traditionally been a strong reliance by students and researchers on knowledge generated in foreign countries. Thus a lack of international harmonisation of limitations and exceptions disproportionately affects developing countries. These limitations and exceptions need to urgently address cross-border uses, online uses, and digital preservation to create the maximum developmental impact.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 3 and Day 4

sinha — 2021-07-08T14:51:23Z

Day 3 and 4 saw the presentation of four studies conducted by external experts on music markets in various regions in the world and one study on rights of stage directors of theatrical productions. Day 4 saw member states sharing their positions on a proposal for creation of two rights 1) rights of stage directors of stage productions and 2) public lending right. The Chair also presented the draft summary of the session upon its conclusion, on Day 4. This blog post shares the specific text under the broadcasting and limitations and exceptions agenda items, relevant from an access to knowledge perspective.

1. On the issue of transparency and inclusivity in informal work on the 'protection of broadcasting organisations' agenda item, that emerged on Day 1, the Chair summarised:

" The chair and vice chair and will take the views expressed during the session on the modalities of the informal work into consideration, including the need to uphold the principles of transparency and inclusivity."

2. An 'information session' on impact of COVID was proposed by the Asia-pacific group on Day 2, the Chair summarised:

" The Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session, footnote 1, the text of the footnote is as follows. The reference to half day is based on a meeting day with two three-hour sessions, in case SCCR/42 has truncated meeting days with single daily meeting sessions of up to three hours, the information session could take place during one entire day.

So, back to the sentence after the footnote. I will repeat, the Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session on the topic of the impact of COVID-19 on the cultural, creative and educational ecosystem including copyright, related rights and limitations and exceptions during the week of the 42nd session of the Committee. During the session following presentations from experts, member states will have the opportunity to exchange views and experiences. This process will be guided by a holistic and balanced approach. The information session will be separated from the rest of the agenda during the 42nd session."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2

sinha — 2021-07-08T14:55:30Z

Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the scope, direction, and progress of work on the limitations and exceptions agenda. This blog post summarises positions and contentions around: 1) Information Session on impact COVID 2) Creating a binding limitations and exceptions international instrument 3) Work Plan under the L&E agenda 4) Conducting regional consultations as per the report on regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions.

There was a strong consensus on the fact that COVID had adversely affected actors and beneficiaries involved with the copyright system, but there was less consensus on which stakeholders and beneficiaries to focus on as a priority, and which next steps and remedies should be considered. The gamut of stakeholders under the limitations and exceptions agenda item includes authors, publishers, creative cultural industries, educational and research institutions, persons with disabilities, libraries, museums, and archives, licensing societies, and users’ rights advocates.

Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions

1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID

Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) proposed an information session on the copyright framework in the format of presentations from experts and relevant stakeholders as well as exchange of views among them at the next SCCR (SCCR42) to understand the impact on COVID-19, especially as developing countries, with a view of rights, related rights and exceptions and limitations. It noted the lack of international settings that could have enabled a collaborative approach during COVID-19 to handling the impact on education, research, culture and knowledge.

Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iran supported the proposal. South Africa backed both the proposal and the regional consultations along with a preference for completing them in a time bound manner by the next SCCR. Belarus was in support as well.

Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) was in favour of an information session for evaluating an all-round impact of the pandemic which was not only from a limitations and exceptions viewpoint. In a similar vein, USA suggested that the information session be holistic in its framing – all parts of the copyright system should be taken into consideration. UK (on behalf of Group B) stated that it would prefer to examine a formal proposal document on such a session first, that should adopt a ‘holistic approach’.

Towards the end, Indonesia questioned whether the idea of a ‘holistic’ information session equally focused on rights and related rights could even be counted or considered as a next step in the limitations and exceptions (“L&E”) agenda item.

2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument

Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) stuck to its position of 1) taking an evidence-based approach on the way forward for the L&E agenda and preference to 2) exchanging national best practices instead of creating a binding treaty. Ecuador was also in favour of exchanging best practices. UK (on behalf of group B) was in favour of providing technical assistance to countries, and the EU and USA maintained their position against an international instrument.

Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) stated that COVID had forced a rethink of role of copyright in ensuring access to educational and resource materials as well as protecting the rights of the creators of the copyrighted works, in situations such as the pandemic. The absence of an international instrument on limitations and exceptions has been widely felt in this context.

Pakistan stated that a baseline international instrument was necessary and would be useful for looking at one’s own national law. South Africa (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) Indonesia reminded everyone that work under this agenda item should proceed under the 2012 mandate of developing a legal instrument on limitations and exceptions. Iran also expressed its support for a norm-setting instrument.

3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda

South Africa said that a clear way forward for limitations and exceptions was necessary, and that way forward should not be limited to the views and steps mentioned in the report on the regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions ("report"). It also supported the 2012 mandate on developing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions.

UK (on behalf of group B) stated that access to knowledge should not inhibit the remunerative rights to authors and performers. Ecuador said that it supported narrow limitations and exceptions that comply with the Berne three-step test.

Russia suggested the creation of a set of “general principles” underpinning this agenda item, to set a base standard agreed by everyone and begin work from that point. It noted that it was crucial to resolve the issues of cross-border sharing, legal uncertainty between countries, and digital preservation. It added that the principles could become the guiding principles for national legislation as well.
Pakistan, noting the COVID impact, stated that cross-border cooperation or international norm-setting could be useful. Brazil stated that there was a consensus on preservation and cross-border issues, and room for further discussions on limitations and exceptions for ‘persons with other disabilities’ under this agenda item. Chile added that international guidelines were desirable at least in the area of education, libraries, and archives.

In the end, Indonesia in its statement reminded everyone that there was still no concrete work plan (under this agenda) on the table. This despite the draft report indicating issues such as preservation, online uses, cross-border uses, and safe harbour as feasible for discussion on next steps. The report had also recommended formation of expert groups to study these issues further (para 400 of the report (SCCR42/2)) It added that while it was aligned to the 2012 mandate (of producing a legal instrument), the work plan could include a joint recommendation.

4. Regional Consultations (as per report's recommendation)

China endorsed the regional consultation. EU supported regional consultations, noting that COVID had impacted creative cultural industries as well. Pakistan stated that it was important for the consultations to include beneficiaries of this agenda item.

UK (on behalf of Group B) questioned whether holding regional consultations were necessary during a pandemic, and later added that the regional consultations and information session exercises should not be executed together.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 1

sinha — 2021-06-29T13:40:49Z

Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1) transparency in SCCR work 2) limitations and exceptions 3) addressing the object of protection and overbroad scope of rights in the draft treaty text.

Agenda Item: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations

1. Opacity around informal work on the broadcasting treaty agenda

Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa and Chile shared their disappointment on the lack of transparency of informal meetings on the treaty text, and urged for greater openness. The informal meetings were conducted between WIPO and an ad hoc group of countries known as ‘Friends of the (SCCR) Chair’. This group currently includes Argentina, Colombia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the United States of America. The group met in April and June 2021, but Indonesia questioned whether there was a mandate for it in the first place.

Indonesia and Pakistan requested for further updates on the status of the treaty text from the WIPO SCCR Chair and Vice-Chair, especially as an outcome of the informal work. The two delegations also noted the lack of diversity and imbalance in representation in the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group. Pakistan noted that this agenda item had always had a diversity of viewpoints, and that this new mechanism was reductive and not inclusive.

The WIPO SCCR Chair’s and Vice-Chair’s response was that the ‘Friends of the Chair’ mechanism was adopted to do inter-sessional work (work between two SCCRs), in a flexible and less-time consuming manner. The Chair added that the group was created in 2019 (i.e in the previous Chair's term). However, it should be noted that the group was created only for an “exceptional informal intersessional meeting” with the objective to “brainstorm on possible ways to make progress on the draft treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations in view of the upcoming WIPO General Assembly and the 40th session of the SCCR which will be held in October.” Indonesia made a request to join this group, which was denied by the Chair. The Chair only assured that the concerns raised will be addressed.

2. Support for adding better limitations and exceptions to the treaty text

South Africa emphasised on the critical role of broadcasting organisations in transmitting information and knowledge, and cautioned that the treaty text should be balanced and not negatively impact access to information, culture and education. Iran (speaking on behalf of Asia-pacific group) highlighted the public interest stakes in the treaty and stated that the way forward was to ensure that no layer of rights is created which might affect the right to access information. Chile also was in favour of a more balanced approach that should include limitations and exceptions. Indonesia and Pakistan added that limitations and exceptions in the current text need to be addressed more properly, as they are essential provisions for digital preservation, online use and research.

3. Alternative legal solutions to address broadcast piracy

Canada highlighted how in its national law it provides signal protection and combats piracy without granting exclusive rights to broadcasters on transmission.

Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions

1. Support for Limitations and Exceptions agenda item

India noted the importance of the limitations and exceptions agenda for the benefit of the work of libraries, archives, museums, and educational and research institutions, and shared its support for the agenda item.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1

Why Open Access Has To Look Up For Academic Publishing To Look Up

sinha — 2016-10-12T16:22:10Z

In an important development, the US Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint against the India-based OMICS group for harassing authors to publish in its journals.

The article was published in the Wire on October 12, 2016.

“…if you are a member of the knowledge elite, then there is free access, but for the rest of the world, not so much … Publisher restrictions do not achieve the objective of enlightenment, but rather the reality of ‘elite-nment.” Lawrence Lessig

In 2011, speaking impassionately to an audience at CERN – one of the world’s largest institutions for nuclear physics research, headquartered in Geneva – Lessig, a professor of law at Harvard Law School and a political activist, highlighted the crisis of access to scientific scholarship. Indeed, over the last six decades, public access to scholarly works has diminished. Works that can be freely searched and read represent only a sliver of the entire wealth of human knowledge.

With the emergence of academic journals in the seventeenth century, the practice of exchanging manuscripts for review and comments became popular, leading to the establishment of the peer-review system. In fact, until the eighteenth century, there existed a strong belief in the intellectual commons and traditions of sharing knowledge between scholars. These traditions dated back to scholarship flourishing in ancient Greece. Open access was the default, and not the exception to the norm.

However, by the nineteenth century, there occurred a game-changing shift in the approach to knowledge production. It was theorised that the commons approach was inefficient and that knowledge needed to be exclusively owned to spur further production. This was in line with the incentive theory of copyright law, which was an added justification to the commoditisation of knowledge. In such circumstances, all scholarly works increasingly came to be fortified within the expensive walls of academic journals. Journals left no stone unturned to capitalise on scholars vying to get published in prestigious titles (Nature, Lancet, Cell, etc.).

The business model rarely rewarded authors or peer reviewers. On the contrary, some journals required authors to pay a considerable fee to publish their work. Subscription charges to such research, a large part of which was funded by the government (i.e. taxpayers), hit the roof and could be afforded only by elite institutions. And with the advent of the digital age, the fortresses moved online.

However, before the internet arrived, there had been efforts to counter the entrenchment of scholarly works. They were mostly in the nature of social movements, located broadly within the philosophical umbrella of openness. The nineties marked a significant increase in the modes of access, through devices connected to the internet. Previously a fringe movement, openness was now entering the realms of publishing, software, standards development, education and data. It manifested in Linux, Wikipedia, open web standards, open educational resources, open government data, Creative Commons and, particularly, open access publishing. Just last month, a UN report called for open access to research to improve public health.

Open access publishing was a breakaway from the traditional scholarly publishing model. It offered a different model of online research publication informed by the principles of transparency, free access and unrestricted access. Three key definitions exist, and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) provides a good overview of it:

There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

Further, open access is compatible with copyright, peer review, revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, quality, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature (as Peter Suber wrote in 2004). The model broadly offers two routes: gold and green. Gold open access involves publication in an open access journal. The journal provides for peer-review, retention of copyright by the author and in most cases requires author-side fees. Green open access involves publishing a work in an online repository, with/without peer-review. The models have several variations, and adoption often depends on their suitability for a particular discipline. Many institutions now have an Open Access Mandate policy.

Latest challenges to open access publishing

For a 15-year-old movement (formally), open access publishing is making a serious dent in the market for scholarly publications. It has emerged as a formidable competitor to the traditional model. How else do you explain the unfortunate acquisition of SSRN – one of the largest online open access repositories – by the largest publisher of academic journals, Elsevier, earlier this year? Where, within a few days of Elsevier gaining control, users began to notice problematic takedowns of articles on SSRN.

The acquisition was a severe blow to open access publishing. To be fair, there remain certain issues intrinsic to open access publishing models that need urgent resolution. For instance, while some open access journals provide high quality services at levels comparable to that of paywalled journals, a large majority has been unable to reach reasonable standards of publication.

Further, as it has emerged lately, many are yet to crack the business model while a few are driven by malicious attempts to con authors. Most commercial open access publishers have resorted to a system of levying from the authors an article-processing charge (APC). These publishers include large players such as the Public Library of Science journals and BioMed Central. APCs are justified as necessary costs for publication. Thus, sometimes they are reasonably applied only to peer-reviewed submissions. However, sometimes they are blatantly misused by publishers who quote exorbitant APCs. As a result, APCs have become a serious concern for the academic community, with the reentry of an undesirable price barrier which has shifted the burden from the reader to the author.

In one noteworthy development, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a complaint against the OMICS group for deceiving authors and misrepresenting its editorial quality. The OMICS group has its roots in Hyderabad and runs a multitude of open access journals. It carried a notorious reputation for soliciting articles profusely, and then holding the articles hostage unless the authors paid hefty fees for their publication. It apparently charged the fees for conducting peer-review, which as this harrowing account of an author reveals, was an utter sham. It also seems that the group targeted unsuspecting scholars from developing countries, where there was a higher concentration of early-career researchers eager to get their works published.

Holding articles hostage and releasing unchecked versions must have already caused irreparable damage to several researchers’ reputations. In this day of web-caching and -indexing facilities, one wonders if the researchers will ever be able to obliterate linkages to their unchecked manuscripts. Further, in the long run, this phenomenon will ruin or suppress promising careers – especially from developing countries. As a result, the present lack of diversity in top-rung academia may not be eliminated for a long time.

Such harmful, predatory practices have not escaped the FTC’s notice, and it has stated that it will pursue cases of similar nature to protect authors and consumers. This is the first time in the world when a governmental authority has taken cognisance of predatory practices in OA publishing. This will hopefully lead to an appropriate cleansing effect of the players in this field, and enhance the credibility of open access journals.

Thus, self-regulation and standard-setting remains an area for improvisation in the open access publishing community. At the cusp of the movement, proposed structures were mired in legal and economic arguments. It is yet to overcome the challenge of economic sustainability and mature into a stable as well as replicable business model. The movement will be celebrating the Open Access Week for the ninth year later this month. It has gifted scholars immeasurably and lent itself to the progress of science and arts. Here’s hoping the community will iron out the remaining challenges to further strengthen the movement soon.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/the-wire-anubha-sinha-october-12-2016-why-open-access-has-to-look-up-for-academic-publishing-to-look-up

Where is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Headed?

sinha — 2016-09-17T14:15:05Z

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – the Asian answer to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is still being furiously scripted.

The blog post was originally published in Spicy IP on September 7, 2016. It can be read here.

The US-led TPP and China-led RCEP were always touted as rivals racing to set global trade standards before the conclusion of the other. Well, TPP gunned ahead and is currently in the ratification phase, where as RCEP is yet to be concluded and talks may very well enter 2017. The latest round of RCEP talks ended last month and paints a worrisome picture for the global south, given that it will bring 3.5 billion people and 12% of world trade into its fold.

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) do not enable zero-sum free trade. In fact, each country leaves with disproportionate gains and losses in their kitty, after the conclusion of the agreement. And the worst casualties are environment, public health, labour rights, SMEs and local markets. Since there is plenty of give and take occurring in a context of fluid foreign policy relations, it becomes imperative to locate the ‘barter’. Last month, Balaji wrote an excellent comparative analysis(I & II) of the RCEP IPR text, and this post complements that. I present a regional overview of negotiations and the impact on course of the agreement, as gathered from press coverage of the meetings and the leaks; and to provide a more wholesome picture of the barters, I discuss other relevant chapters at the end of this post. Further, as the negotiations are conducted in secrecy, different organisations and individuals have ‘leaked’ draft texts. KEI and bilaterals.org are two such organizations that regularly collate and release latest RCEP texts. I rely on RCEP’s IP Chapter(October 15, 2015 version) and Terms of Reference by the Working Group on Electronic Commerce(August 2015 version). Analysing the Telecommunications Services chapter is outside the scope of the post, and I link it here for the interest of our readers.

Impact on E-commerce

What is currently available are the terms for reference establishing the Working Group’s mandate on drafting a chapter on e-commerce. The document acknowledges the need for inclusion of a provision for special and differential treatment, and additional flexibilities to the least developed ASEAN countries. It draws a list of relevant elements for possible inclusion in the RCEP. I reproduce the list here (emphasis supplied is mine):

I. General Provisions

Cooperation
Electronic Supply of Services

II. Trade Faciliation

Paperless Trading
Electronic Signature and Digital Certification

III. Creating a Conducive Environment for Electronic Commerce

Online Consumer Protection
Online Personal Data Protection
Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Domestic Regulatory Frameworks
Custom Duties
Non-Discriminatory Treatment of Digital Products

IV. Promoting Cross Border Electronic Commerce

Prohibition on Requirements Concerning the Location of Computing Facilities
Prohibition on Requirements Concerning Disclosure of Source Code
Cross- Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means

While there is no clarity on customs duties, there is a mention of non-discriminatory treatment of digital products. While India has no law on non-discriminatory treatment of digital products, this may conflict with the Indian government’s policy on adoption of open source software for government use.

More alarmingly, the first prohibition restrains governments from mandating data localisation. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) also bar governments from making rules on data localisation, i.e. requiring physical situation of servers and storage in their countries’ territories. This is a worrisome provision because it may effectuate surreptitious surveillance. The prohibition on disclosure of source code is also troublesome and is aimed to stop examination and review of code in computing devices. This would effectively ban security researchers from finding security vulnerabilities in devices, and the if the provision is drafted like its counterpart in the TPP, there will also be prohibitions on checks by regulating authorities.

Re ‘Cross- Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means’, the provision will be most likely drafted to favour big data and advertising companies’ operations enabling unrestricted transfer of personal data(like the TPP). If that is the case, then it will be in conflict with Rule 7 of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011, which permits cross-border flow of personal information only in situations where the recipient of the information complies with Indian data protection standards as a bare minimum.

Impact on farmer's seeds

RCEP is bound to hit farmers the worst: not only are countries reducing tariffs for increased import of agricultural products, there also exists an obligation to join the International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV system), which would mandate members to introduce a new IPR: the breeders’ right over new plant varieties. Japan and Korea want RCEP members to join UPOV 1991, and Japan has proposed criminal penalties for the infringement of breeders’ rights.

While India has applied to become a member to the UPOV Convention, in 2001 it passed the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, and thereby built a sui generis system of protection (ambitiously trying to balance breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights). It will be naive to expect a similar attempt in balanced lawmaking by other countries. Furthermore, “…India’s current legislation is less stringent than UPOV 1991. It allows farmers to continue with their seed practices, except they cannot sell packaged seeds of protected varieties. The space for both small farmers and public breeders to freely work with seeds will be lost of RCEP goes the way of what Korea and Japan are proposing.” Using FTAs to reduce farmers’ freedom has been well documented, and you may read more on that here.

The text also desires all RCEP members to codify traditional knowledge and make it available to various patent offices. This push is widely regarded as problematic, as it is feared that documenting and digitization of existing knowledge may propel companies to use that information for commercial gains, to the detriment of the indigenous people and farming communities. On the other hand, it would be feasible to share such data in a confidential manner with patent offices, as India has done under the TKDL.

Massive reduction in tariffs

Tariffs emerged as an enormous sticking point in the August round, and there was pressure on India to eliminate tariffs completely. India proposed a differential tariff reduction plan, but countries kept pushing for a single-tier plan – particularly Japan. Finally, in what is seen as a big loss, India offered tariff cuts as high as 80% goods trade for all RCEP partners, except China. With China, India said that it was only comfortable with a 65% tariff cut initially, given the skewed trade deficit between China and India. It is worth noting that for India, RCEP will become the first FTA to forge trade partnerships with China, Australia,and New Zealand.

As a result of the heavy concession in tariffs, the Kerala Agriculture Minister has moved a cabinet note, and written a letter to the Centre expressing serious concerns on lowering of tariffs for agricultural products. He also requested to include Kerala in the RCEP pre-negotiation talks.

Staving off ISDS

Provisions on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are being pushed by Japan and South Korea. Countries are not convinced about agreeing to this, especially India. In fact, India is in the process of rolling back on bilateral investment treaties, and has already moved for BIT termination with 57 countries. We’ve already seen ISDS being (mis)used by private entities against governments – there have been enough challenges to countries’ IPR laws and policies as well.

Mobilised Movements against the RCEP

Individuals and organizations are advocating for scrapping the RCEP, given the impact that it is expected to have on people’s rights and freedoms. A ‘People’s Strategy Meeting’ last month conducted large-scale sessions to inform civil society organizations, NGOs, trade unions, farmers groups and other peoples’ movements in the Asia-pacific region. Many have also been persistently calling out for a meeting with negotiators of their respective countries and for a public hearing on the RCEP. The Asia Pacific Research Network has released a policy brief on the RCEP, and you may read that here.

The road ahead

Looking at the larger picture, it is evident now that neo-FTAs’ focus on trade has descended into attacks on sovereign states’ economic and social policies.

With respect to the RCEP IPR text, India is trying to eliminate TRIPS plus provisions from the text. And after heavy concessions on the tariff front, it will be bargaining for liberalisation in services in the next rounds. India’s aim is to clinch a deal allowing for free-er movement of its workers and professionals. Further, the negotiations are going to proceed quickly now. Members are becoming desperate to lock down the text, and therefore, this year we will see more rounds than the usual scheduled ones. The urgency is driven largely by Japan and Korea – both of which wish to ratify the TPP soon and would like the RCEP to work in tandem.

In another worrisome development, Phillipines, Thailand and Indonesia have met with US trade officials on what they need to do to join the TPP, once it is implemented. These countries are considering making serious changes to their labour, environmental, IP, and other standards. Yesterday, US Prez. Obama arrived in Vietnam for the Asean summit, trying hard to sell the TPP. Japan and Korea are already TPP members, and if ASEAN countries come under TPP’s fold as well, we may see an upping of standards at the RCEP.

India will have to deploy serious negotiating chops at the upcoming rounds if it is remotely hopeful of steering the RCEP standards away from the TPP.

Author’s note: Added the sentence “On the other hand, it would be feasible to share such data in a confidential manner with patent offices, as India has done under the TKDL.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-september-7-2016-anubha-sinha-where-is-the-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership-headed

Views on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:48:40Z

On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6). Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage. Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My presentation will be in reference to the revised consolidated text SCCR 36/6 and the US proposal SCCR 37/7.

In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional – satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.

The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities. This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step. And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.

My co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international standard.

The US delegation’s proposal, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations – organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.

At a seminar on this very treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this neighbouring right. He said that the justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it technically possible to do that?

To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and exceptions is urgently needed.

Thank you.

For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international

USTR elaborates the Two Dozen Digital Rules of Club TPP

sinha — 2016-07-29T08:00:00Z

Members of the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are now scrounging the world to include more countries in its fold. The Digital 2 Dozen(D2D) is a bite-sized document which packs the TPP into 24 key tenets. The D2D, aggressively championed by the US as the path forward for the global digital economy poses some critical questions for India: first, how will India position itself against US pressure in the larger scheme of US-India foreign relations, and how much is it willing to concede its policies in the name of trade; second, how will reduced barriers and establishment of a level field for Indian and foreign IT and internet companies alike, hurt Indian consumers and businesses? This week, the Deputy US Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Holleyman discussed the Digital 2 Dozen document with Ambassador Shyam Saran (Chairman, RIS). The exchange was moderated by Samir Saran (Observer Research Foundation). I attended the discussion and this post is a summary of the key points.

For a background on the data protection and privacy aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and Digital 2 Dozen principles, please read CIS' piece here.

Ambassador Robert Holleyman

Ambassador Holleyman opened with stating that trade agreements are created to build a foundation for national policies. He added that the D2D is not merely a tech D2D, rather it is based on the premise that our economies have digitised to a large extent, and hence, the TPP contains provisions on agriculture as well. The TPP tries to combat barriers to the growth of digital economy, and the D2D provides the most modern and the highest standard of such provisions. The D2D tenets can be divided into three categories:

1. Provisions to ensure the internet is open and safe, and an effective channel for trade and services.

2. Provisions to combat protectionist and restrictive provisions of member nations. The D2D talks about eliminating rules that seek to make foreign companies localise their data by building expensive data centers in every market they seek to serve. Further, TPP also seeks to prevent countries from 'forcing' foreign companies from transferring their technologies and production processes as a pre-condition for doing business there.

3. Provisions on IPRs to 'build a level playing field' in order to 'protect' innovators and creators in the digital space.

“ ...The TPP rules on enforcement of IPRs are strong and balanced and embody the TRIPs standards. For instance, countries are required to to impose criminal penalties on trade-secret violations such as cyberhacking.”

He added:

“We believe these rules are the foundation for next 20 years of the digital economy. To make sure that India does not fall behind we want to work with India (for the adoption of these rules). We're encouraged by the new government's programmes and the PM's engagement with US and silicon valley leaders.

We encourage India to level the playing field. To that end the USTR is working with the Indian Ministries of Communications and IT, and Commerce and Industry to exchange practices for building open markets. We want to work together in eliminating localisation policies given that how a lot of IT companies have established investment heavy R&D centers in India, and they rely heavily on the free flow of cross border data. Imposition of localisation of data would be detrimental in this age of cloud-computing. We're aware that the Indian government is reviewing its policies on cloud-computing and encryption, and we encourage the government to consider the implications of the such policies carefully, for India is also a leader in global IT and would be a potential framework setter at that.”

The D2D also endorses elimination of custom duties on ICT products, and the Ambassador added that the US was very pleased to see India deposit their instrument of accession on the Trade Facilitation Agreement with the WTO. The US has been pleased to see India's ratcheting up its norms for IPR protection. He mentioned that the two countries held a successful copyright workshop earlier this year, and later this year they plan to conduct a workshop on trade secret protection. The D2D also says that conformity assessment procedures are excessive and should be eliminated. This emerges from US' IT industries concerns on the compulsory registration of ICT products that required re-testing in Indian labs.

He made a case for opening up Indian markets by quoting a study which revealed that the Indian market for ICT products is worth 65bn dollars, while the global market stands at 2 trillion dollars. So while India could leverage its exports to meet the demand, the question remains if we want to foster a market based on openness. In his opinion, openness has enabled the IT sector in India to access other markets. However, he observed that countries were erecting barriers to this openness by restricting the cross-border free-flow of data, particularly and this is where the TPP assumes importance. The real challenge now is for the US and India to prepare their own version the the D2D.

On the route of D2D, the Ambassador was largely optimistic:

“The TPP has Obama's backing and the US Congress should ratify the deal before the elections. Other TPP members have already initiated steps to ratify the deal in their countries. For phase II, 13 non-member countries have already approached the US to be a part of TPP since the deal was concluded.”

Ambassador Shyam Saran

He began by stating that the India-US engagement on digital economy would become an area of close cooperation for US-India relationship. A few years ago the US pharma was unhappy with Indian generics, and this tussle left a bad taste between the countries, and also spilled over into the political side. Disagreements on several issues such as IPR, WTO subjects, etc still persist, despite some developments reflecting mutual trust and confidence (for instance the counter-terrorism initiative).

He welcomed potential cooperation in the digital field, because that would dispel the negativity and prevailing perception of India and US not being on the same page. The one area that has been a shaky pillar is the trade and economic relationship. In his frank opinion, the Indian establishment perceives USTR's outlook on trade issues as quite adversarial. He was mindful of a developing India's unique needs and priorities:

“In regard to the differences between India and US on trade and economic issues, it is not surprising because we must also be mindful of the reality- we are a developing country, wheras the US is highly developed and technologically advances - thus, we need different lenses for each. This is something we need to address, (remember how we acknowledged and fixed this in our defence relationship re the nuclear deal). The lesson that I draw is that here is an area critical to both countries' growth, and we need to address this differential aspect...”

According to him, right now India has an ambiguous position on the TPP. Holleyman had mentioned that the deal was based on an open platform, and Shyam pointed out that it was in fact conceived through closed door negotiations. It is common knowledge that rules at TPP were arrived at through complex negotiations between 13 countries, which surely was a process of complex give and takes. At this stage, it was not possible for India to look at one chapter and agree to meet the “gold standards” set in it.

According to him, D2D was important to the US solely in terms of trade benefits for its own businesses. He said that to convince the Indian government, the USTR will have to first convince the Indian IT industry the D2D benefits- which he was skeptical of. The reason was that this 'opportunity' comes across as a clear case of double-standards when the US talks about lowering barriers in India, and on the other hand is increasing barriers on its own shores (several pending bills in the US Congress indicate this). Similarly, immigration troubles for the Indian talent pool have only gone up. The other aspect he raised was on localisation and IPRs. He said that while stands on these issues were being formulated, it should also be expected that the government will take into account concerns of privacy and security. In the US itself, the US treasury has said in regard to banking and financial transactions localisation may be necessary.

He closed by offering an alternative route to the US – one of working with India as a partner in the Digital Economy instead of fixating on barriers and/or nitpicking on Indian legislations. This would be a more sustainable way to capitalise on India's growth potential and align with its digital future.

Samir Saran

Samir responded to the discussants by offering his thoughts (and questions) on D2D and the digital economy, broadly:

“...Can the digital space be a new space for a partnership? Three stories are important in the context of a trade document:
First is dominated by access – India is seeing 6 million new internet users every month and most of them are on low-cost mobile devices. Can a trading normative process allow to continue this phenomenon as it is?
Second is opportunity – India is already responding to investment flows. In terms of privacy and security – if India believes that it can become the digital infrastructure hub, it will need to develop world-class encryption tools. Similarly in terms of free-flow of information, when Obama and PM met they endorsed the same. So it is a step back from localisation, anyway. So you see India changing positions to make the atmosphere more business conducive.
Third is security – How can you make free-flow of data uni-directional? Why is it that you want data to flow unfettered when it creates value, but you are creating barriers for giving data for security purposes?...

...Further, in a phase when the mood worldwide is in favour of de-globalisation, will hyperglobalisation through FTAs work?...”

Finally, Holleyman acknowledged that historically India and US have had differences, but with the digital economy perhaps they can forge some approaches. He accepted that some of the points were written squarely for the US tech sector, but he hoped that the other 11 partners of the TPP will come out with what the D2D means to them.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ustr-elaborates-the-two-dozen-digital-rules-of-club-tpp

US Copyright law faces constitutional challenge

sinha — 2016-08-11T13:28:13Z

In a major international development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit to strike down the provisions on Digital Rights Management(DRM) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In this post, I discuss DRMs, the EFF lawsuit, and then draw upon the differences between the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

Originally published by Spicy IP on August 5, 2016. You may read EFF’s lawsuit here.

Decoding DRM

If you own a Netflix account and travel a lot, you may have been denied access to some TV shows depending on the country you logged in from. While that restriction can perhaps be gotten around by using VPNs, there exist other technological measures that prevent you from fixing your own automobile to sharing/making copies of an e-book that you supposedly bought. Such technological protection measures are commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM). These go back twenty years, and it was in 1996 when the first DRM appeared in the form of geo-access restrictions on DVD play.

Soon thereafter, it became de rigeur for businesses dealing in IP to apply all kinds of DRMs to their products. It was largely an embarrassing and a pointless saga of implementing software embedded restrictions to stem piracy (remember the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco?), given how blatantly they were discovered and circumvented. And now since technology is beginning to dwell even in our shoes, DRMs have been slapped onto these as well. So if you discover a bug causing a miscalculation in your step count, you are not only prohibited under law from probing the code and fixing it yourself, but you also may get jailed for doing so. Imagine such how such prohibition impacts and limits our daily lives and the work of professional researchers.

Clearly, DRM is not just a mere trifle to be brushed aside via smarter code– its ramifications go much farther. DRMs come with the problem of masking vulnerabilities, compromised security of the device and us er-privacy, and trampled consumer rights, fair use and free speech. Further, the poor design of DRMs makes them unable to distinguish between illegal use and fair-use. Progressive cutting down of users’ rights to store, reproduce, distribute media has become especially problematic for developing countries because of our greater dependence on free-er terms for sale, lending and donation. On the other hand, DRMs continue to become more ubiquitous(could be incorporated in the HTML 5 standard soon).

However, in an exciting development, the first major legal battle to kill DRM has begun!

Because finally in an unprecedented move, a constitutional challenge has been lodged in the US against DRM provisions, on the grounds that they restrict free speech and fair-use of copyright materials (the fair-use doctrine allows copyright law to co-exist with the first amendment). The complaint has been filed by EFF on behalf of Matthew Green (a security researcher) and Andrew “bunnie” Huang (a technologist)

The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..

Sections 1201-1205 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lay down provisions relating to circumvention of DRM. Uniquely, the DMCA vests power in the Librarian of Congress to periodically enact rules granting exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions to legitimate non-infringing use of works (known as DMCA Rulemaking). It was under this particular instance of rulemaking in 2015, wherein the Librarian failed to grant an exemption for “…speech using clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formats and devices, and for certain forms of security research.” The rejection triggered the challenge against ‘Rulemaking’, ‘anti-circumvention’ and ‘anti-trafficking’ provisions of the DMCA, namely sections 1201(a), 1203, and 1204 . (This exemption was applied for by EFF, which has been seeking (and been granted) exemptions since 2003.)

In fact, universally, DRM provisions pose questions of free speech, consumer rights, privacy and copyright law. In the following section I will examine and compare the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on DRM are based in sections 2(xa), 65A and 65B, which were introduced through the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The sections define ‘Rights Management Information’, provide for ‘Protection of technological measures’ and ‘Protection of Rights Management Information’, respectively. It must be noted that the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was the first instrument to conceive rules on DRM protection (Articles 11, 12). US was the first country to import WCT provisions into its copyright law via DMCA, which even went above the WCT standards. Soon, Hollywood-backed USTR wanted India to follow suit, and the provisions were queued up for an amendment to India’s copyright law. Please note that India is NOT a party to the WCT, and was under no obligation to enact laws on DRMs. Nevertheless, the Indian provisions with some changes and added limitations were loosely lifted from the equivalent WCT articles.

It is worth noting that the Indian DRM provisions have better safeguards than the DMCA provisions:

1) The Indian provisions (s. 65A+ 65B) do not make building and distribution of circumvention tools illegal. Only the act of circumvention attracts criminal liability. However, there is a duty on the person facilitating circumvention for another person to maintain a record of the same, including the purpose for which the facilitation occurred. The purpose should not be expressly prohibited under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Regardless, being criminally liable for circumventing DRM is a major threat to small businesses and developers. In one instance, when some Indian developers had built an open source software “PlayFair” to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM, they were threatened with legal action under the US’ DMCA. Despite the DMCA having no jurisdiction in India, the developers shut shop.

2) Clauses 65A(1) and 65A(2)(a) confine violation of technological protection measures to rights enumerated in the act, only. This means that the section does not restrict circumventions which attempt to get access to the underlying work.

While India has not seen major challenges to this provision, in 2013 the Delhi High Court injuncted persons from jailbreaking into Sony Playstations. Amlan analysed the order and questioned it in terms of the Court finding the act of ‘modifying the playstation without Sony’s consent’ illegal. Because, if you read section 65A (emphasis supplied is mine):

65A. Protection of Technological Measures

(1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:

(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:

Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or

(b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or

(c) conducting any lawful investigation; or

(d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or

(e) operator; or [sic]

(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or

(g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.

Clause (1) clearly states that the law is only applicable to such technological protection measures applied to protect any of the rights conferred by the copyright act. Which raises the questions of which rights are affected when OS of the playstation is modified, and how does the modification amount to copyright infringement? One may perhaps draw that the Court in this order placed the ‘consent’ of Sony above the law.

3) S. 65A(2) safeguards certain acts which also exist as exceptions granted in the Copyright Act. These enumerated acts may be performed without attracting liability: for instance, circumventions for purposes of encryption research, security testing, lawful investigation, evading surveillance by DRM are kosher. Note that s. 65A(2)(g) permits circumvention in the interest of national security.

(For a detailed exegesis of these provisions, please read this piece.)

A look at the draconian DMCA provisions

As I mentioned earlier, the DMCA provisions on DRMs are much stricter compared to the Indian copyright act. Both circumvention(s. 1201(a)(1)), and building and distribution of circumvention tools(s. 1201(a)(2)) are illegal and punishable. The DMCA also meticulously defines circumvention, in terms of “circumventing a technological measure” and “circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure.”

More alarmingly, these provisions envisage access controls as well as use controls. So a person decrypting a DVD to gain access to the work would be held liable for infringement (unlike in India where only the act of copying or modifying the work would trigger infringement). It is also worth noting that there is no clause stating that circumvention (and tools) of only those DRMs is illegal when the DRMs protect rights conferred under the DMCA.

While s. 1201(c) states that the section shall not affect “…rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair-use…” Further, there do exist exemptions to clauses(a)(1) and (2):

Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions; and
Exemption for the purposes of law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities, reverse engineering (solely for the purposes of achieving interoperability), restricting internet access to minors, protecting personally identifiable information, security testing, encryption research, etc.

While the list seems to permit circumvention for a wide range of purposes and fair-use, the vague and narrow language has failed the implementation of these exemptions. EFF lists a bunch of these instances where the DRM provisions have been not necessarily used against pirates, but also scientists, consumers and legit competitors.

Further, the DMCA left it entirely to the US copyright agencies to carve exemptions for non-infringing uses of works on a triennial basis. This rulemaking procedure has received heavy criticism, and as a result of the 2015 rejection the Library of the Congress finds itself in a legal soup.

Finally, the EFF lawsuit also illustrates the violations of the plaintiffs rights to free speech and fair-use, as a direct result of the provisions and the Rulemaking process. Armed with a strong case, and as Cory Doctorow puts it, we may witness the eradication of DRM in our lifetime. And I will be following the developments closely and keep our readers updated.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge

Update on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India

sinha — 2021-04-28T17:28:47Z

Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021.

This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd, Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.

In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did not appear before the court.

Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of the websites.

One of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the only access to educational and research materials for a big community of Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have become indispensable during the pandemic.

This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had advocated for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s current draft science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and their crippling impact in the Indian context.

They further argue that since the use of the websites is for research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.

In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been served properly yet.

At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement (not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared some thoughts on the case in an interview here.

Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.

The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing country.

Note: For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this document prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.

Access the article on InfoJustice here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india

The STI Policy Proposes a Transformative Open Access Approach for India

sinha — 2021-04-28T17:22:43Z

Anubha Sinha explains what the draft national Science, Technology and Innovation policy means for open access to scientific literature for Indians. This article was first published in The Wire Science on January 21, 2021.

Indians may soon be able to read scientific papers for free.

Reading scientific papers is currently an expensive affair. Many scientific journals charge a couple of hundred dollars for a single article. Under a proposed ‘One Nation, One Subscription’ plan of India’s fifth (draft) Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy, the government will negotiate with journal publishers to enable access for everyone. The policy also suggests that research produced in Indian publicly funded institutions be made freely accessible to everyone, at the time of publication.

These proposals are a big shift in how we learn and do science, as a country. The previous edition of the policy (2013) did not even recognise affordability or availability of scientific literature as problems. While ‘One Nation, One Subscription’ could alleviate this issue partly, its success will depend largely on how negotiations with publishers materialise. The approach is uncommon: it has been tried in two countries, with limited success, as I discussed here, in an analysis of the idea’s feasibility.

While it is crucial for people to be able to access locked-in research, it is equally important to address the practices that prevent research from being openly accessible in the first place.

The STI policy prescribes a green open access (OA) approach to ensure that research output and data produced with public funds are immediately accessible to the people – as opposed to taxpayers funding the research and paying again to access the results. Under green OA, researchers will be obligated to place their publications and data in online repositories, without any restrictions on how the output may be used.

Individual research and funding agencies, such as the Departments of Science & Technology and of Biotechnology, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Wellcome Trust adopted green OA a while ago. A national STI policy stands to provide an extra impetus to adopt and enforce it.

These promising shifts come at a time when the biggest research publishers have launched a copyright infringement lawsuit in India to block Sci-Hub and LibGen on the Indian web. Sci-Hub and LibGen host copyrighted and paywalled research articles and ebooks. Anyone can download this material for free from their servers. As such, these ‘shadow libraries’ serve a vital function for everyone, and the Delhi high court has already deemed this litigation to be one of public importance. The Indian scientific research community will be intervening as well. While the case will proceed at its own pace, it would definitely be in the public interest for the STI policy to implement green OA as a mandatory requirement.

It is also notable that the policymaking process was a collaborative effort by academics, scientists and policymakers. There were multiple thematic consultative rounds with stakeholders. It has been heartening to see the results of a democratic consultation reflected in our national open access approach.

However, as is the case with high-level policies, bringing meaningful implementation often requires more operational and committed work at all levels. It would be a shame to not capitalise on the direction and vision of OA as described in the policy.

Access this article on The Wire Science here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-sti-policy-proposes-a-transformative-open-access-approach-for-india

Centre for Internet and Society

Workshop on Set-top Boxes

Apply

Fee and Funding

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

WIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item

WIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 3 and Day 4

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2

Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions

1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID

2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument

3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda

4. Regional Consultations (as per report's recommendation)

WIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 1

Agenda Item: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations

1. Opacity around informal work on the broadcasting treaty agenda

2. Support for adding better limitations and exceptions to the treaty text

3. Alternative legal solutions to address broadcast piracy

Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions

1. Support for Limitations and Exceptions agenda item

Why Open Access Has To Look Up For Academic Publishing To Look Up

Latest challenges to open access publishing

Where is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Headed?

Impact on E-commerce

Impact on farmer's seeds

Massive reduction in tariffs

Staving off ISDS

Mobilised Movements against the RCEP

The road ahead

Views on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International

USTR elaborates the Two Dozen Digital Rules of Club TPP

Ambassador Robert Holleyman

Ambassador Shyam Saran

Samir Saran

US Copyright law faces constitutional challenge

Decoding DRM

The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..

WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act

A look at the draconian DMCA provisions

Update on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India

The STI Policy Proposes a Transformative Open Access Approach for India