Anti-DRM-Campaign/Proposed-Amendments: Difference between revisions
Suggessions & Recomentations added |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''DRM proposed in Indian copyright law''' | '''DRM proposed in Indian copyright law''' | ||
Section 65A & 65B in proposed | Section 65A & 65B in proposed amendments to Indian Copyright Act proposes DRM in Indian Copyright law. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
However, DRM is extra-statutory. Consequently, rights that are conferred by the law are enforced by the copyright holder himself through technological measures so as to prevent access to such digital media or software which would infringe the copyright of the copyright holder. But, more importantly, this would also mean that DRM allows for copyright holders to restrict access to digital media or software under terms which would be currently permissible under copyright law. | However, DRM is extra-statutory. Consequently, rights that are conferred by the law are enforced by the copyright holder himself through technological measures so as to prevent access to such digital media or software which would infringe the copyright of the copyright holder. But, more importantly, this would also mean that DRM allows for copyright holders to restrict access to digital media or software under terms which would be currently permissible under copyright law. | ||
For example, if a person wished to make a copy of a legally purchased media file for personal use or for back-up, | For example, if a person wished to make a copy of a legally purchased media file for personal use or for back-up, utilizing the flexibility sanctioned under Section 51(1)(b)(ii) of the Indian Copyright Act, he/she would not be able to do so if the proposed amendments suggested here are enacted. It could also prevent private screening of digital media, which would (otherwise) be perfectly legal to do under the current Act. The inclusion of this provision means that copyright holders will be allowed to enforce their own copyright terms on digital media or software that they produce; terms that are not concurrent with the current Indian Copyright Act. | ||
Furthermore, DRM will have a significant impact on innovation. This has particular significance for India where the fruits of innovation need to be accessible to both the innovator and the consumer. An example is the invention of the Simputer , which was built on reverse-engineering. With the introduction of DRM and the | Furthermore, DRM will have a significant impact on innovation. This has particular significance for India where the fruits of innovation need to be accessible to both the innovator and the consumer. An example is the invention of the Simputer , which was built on reverse-engineering. With the introduction of DRM and the criminalization of its circumvention, low-cost, locally relevant and contextually appropriate computer hardware and software may never become available to the public at large. | ||
With the inclusion of such provisions, DRM becomes a tool not for protection of copyright but for changing consumer expectations of the product that they receive. We do not believe that this is a valid duty of the current Indian Copyright Act or the amendments proposed in this instance. We further believe that the experience of the USA with regards to DRM and anti-circumvention legislation is useful and instructive to the Indian case | With the inclusion of such provisions, DRM becomes a tool not for protection of copyright but for changing consumer expectations of the product that they receive. We do not believe that this is a valid duty of the current Indian Copyright Act or the amendments proposed in this instance. We further believe that the experience of the USA with regards to DRM and anti-circumvention legislation is useful and instructive to the Indian case | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
We also suggest that government provide for an administrative procedure for regular review of copyrighted works that on substantial reason and cause should not be protected by the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B - for example, in cases of people with a visual disability, where copyrighted works will need to be converted into appropriate formats. For evidence and experience with respect to the suggestions above, please refer to the recommendations of select governmental and non-governmental reports on the implementation of DRM <ref> [http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/protection/report.htm Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Australia)]</ref> <ref> [http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/itu_drm.php Electronic Frontier Foundation (United States of America)] </ref> | We also suggest that government provide for an administrative procedure for regular review of copyrighted works that on substantial reason and cause should not be protected by the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B - for example, in cases of people with a visual disability, where copyrighted works will need to be converted into appropriate formats. For evidence and experience with respect to the suggestions above, please refer to the recommendations of select governmental and non-governmental reports on the implementation of DRM <ref> [http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/protection/report.htm Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Australia)]</ref> <ref> [http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/itu_drm.php Electronic Frontier Foundation (United States of America)] </ref> | ||
== | == Recommendation == | ||
Delete in entirety, as per problems explained under Sections 65A & 65B in the main text | Delete in entirety, as per problems explained under Sections 65A & 65B in the main text | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
For More Critiques/ | For More Critiques/suggestions on Proposed Amendments read [http://www.altlawforum.org/ADVOCACY_CAMPAIGNS/copyright_amdt/Copyright%20Amdt-Response-13th%20July%202006.pdf Response to Copyright amenment] prepared by Alternative Law Forum | ||
</div> | </div> | ||