Anti-DRM-Campaign/Proposed-Amendments: Difference between revisions

Line 60:

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

== Suggestions: ==

We recommend, in line with the findings of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property <ref> [http://www.iprcommission.org/ UK Commission on Intellectual Property (“CIPR”)] </ref> (“CIPR”) that it is premature at the present time for developing countries to be required to go beyond TRIPs standards in this area. We strongly believe that developing countries would probably be unwise to endorse the WIPO Copyright Treaty and that they should retain their freedom to legislate on how technological measures are regulated – in the interests of safeguarding access to knowledge and information, for broad socio-economic development. We strongly suggest that the proposed Sections 65A and 65B not be included into the Act (noting that there is no obligation that binds the Indian Government to do so anyway).

However, in the event that Government still decides to introduce DRM into the Act, then we strongly recommend that it introduces safeguards which will protect users from an abuse of the anti-circumvention provision; that is, safeguards that allow users to exercise all the fair dealing clauses ensured and enumerated in the current Act. This is particularly important given the manner in which DRM can affect legitimate research. (Indian researchers and students need access to copyrighted technical journals, educational materials and software: allowing for DRM in

the form of the proposed amendments will seriously undermine India’s development goals.)

The proposed amendment introduces the idea of intention into the act of circumvention, stating “'with the intention of infringing such rights”. This is a significant safeguard. A liberal interpretation thereof would imply that circumvention for fair dealing and other non-infringing activity is allowed. It would mean that the exceptions listed in Section 52 of the Act and elsewhere, would

automatically be outside the purview of Section 65A. It would however be better to clarify this explicitly in the proposed amendment and introduce language which states that circumvention for the purposes of exercising any fair dealing rights, or other exceptions as listed in the Act (such as provisions for people with a disability, for instance), are exempt from being considered as infringement.

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>

== Recomentation ==

Delete in entirety, as per problems explained under Sections 65A & 65B in the main text

==Notes==

”Developing countries will suffer serious costs if they undertake to impose intellectual property regimes beyond what the state of the developing country requires including the imposition of DRM friendly regimes.” - UK Commission on Intellectual Property

For More Critiques/suggessions on Proposed Amenments 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>

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 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
+== Suggestions: ==
+We recommend, in line with the findings of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property <ref> [http://www.iprcommission.org/ UK Commission on Intellectual Property (“CIPR”)] </ref> (“CIPR”) that it is premature at the present time for developing countries to be required to go beyond TRIPs standards in this area. We strongly believe that developing countries would probably be unwise to endorse the WIPO Copyright Treaty and that they should retain their freedom to legislate on how technological measures are regulated – in the interests of safeguarding access to knowledge and information, for broad socio-economic development. We strongly suggest that the proposed Sections 65A and 65B not be included into the Act (noting that there is no obligation that binds the Indian Government to do so anyway).
+However, in the event that Government still decides to introduce DRM into the Act, then we strongly recommend that it introduces safeguards which will protect users from an abuse of the anti-circumvention provision; that is, safeguards that allow users to exercise all the fair dealing clauses ensured and enumerated in the current Act. This is particularly important given the manner in which DRM can affect legitimate research. (Indian researchers and students need access to copyrighted technical journals, educational materials and software: allowing for DRM in
+the form of the proposed amendments will seriously undermine India’s development goals.)
+The proposed amendment introduces the idea of intention into the act of circumvention, stating “'with the intention of infringing such rights”. This is a significant safeguard. A liberal interpretation thereof would imply that circumvention for fair dealing and other non-infringing activity is allowed. It would mean that the exceptions listed in Section 52 of the Act and elsewhere, would
+automatically be outside the purview of Section 65A. It would however be better to clarify this explicitly in the proposed amendment and introduce language which states that circumvention for the purposes of exercising any fair dealing rights, or other exceptions as listed in the Act (such as provisions for people with a disability, for instance), are exempt from being considered as infringement.
+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>
+== Recomentation ==
+Delete in entirety, as per problems explained under Sections 65A & 65B in the main text
+==Notes==
+<div class="references-small">
+”Developing countries will suffer serious costs if they undertake to impose intellectual property regimes beyond what the state of the developing country requires including the imposition of DRM friendly regimes.” - UK Commission on Intellectual Property
+<references/>
+For More Critiques/suggessions on Proposed Amenments 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>