From info at fcforum.net Thu Apr 8 15:45:24 2010 From: info at fcforum.net (fCforum/eXgae) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:15:24 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] Internet defense: Successful response of the civil society Message-ID: <4BBDACBC.8000703@fcforum.net> Thanks to everybody's collaboration, the civil society response to the summit of Ministers of Culture from the 27 European Union countries, and their meeting with the Forum of Cultural Industries, was a massive success. Civil society managed to deactivate the discourse of the lobbies. Below is a report of this latest struggle, but first, here is some of the incredible amount of material produced over the last few days, so that you can spread it and use it: 1 – Videos that explain our demands – very simple and didactic, so that even a Minister can understand it (English versions): The Tracks Collector: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpFe3CbVBw http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/el-cobrador-del-track/ WE create, We decide: http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=3wd4FUrzKZc&feature=related http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/nosotros-decidimos/ Sharing is Necessary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpAAJZYVlQM http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/compartir-es-necesario/ I'm a co-producer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy7s_JoHGQs http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/vicky-cristina-barcelona/ Among other things, a great illustrator, in collaboration with eXgae, has synthesized the discourse on net neutrality to make it easily understood: THE INTERNET WILL NOT BE ANOTHER TV http://internetnoseraotratv.net/en/ To explain ACTA (the 2 best explainations for spanish countries): http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/acta/ To explain The Report 301: http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/amigo-norte-americano/ An then the missing panel just for pleasure: http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/la-ponencia-que-falta/ We hope that all these videos will be useful and that the poster will invade the streets. In the bottom of the mail, extense press release. REPORT OF THE CIVIL RESPONSE TO THE SUMMIT OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE FROM THE EU AND THEIR MEETING WITH THE Forum of Cultural Industries http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/ The parallel citizen summit, the (D') Evolution Summit – which was organized in order to put forward specific proposals and urgent demands on fundamental rights in Internet, and to give a real-time account of what was being said inside the official congress – allowed civil society to keep an eye on what was being said about its future. More than *5000* people (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/d-evolution) were able to connect to the live internet broadcast, and 700 social networks worked spontaneously to ensure that the information circulated immediately. Thousands of blogs helped to spread D’) Evolution (http://www.google.es/search?q="(D')Evolution +Summit"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es- ES:official&client=firefox-a)... The fictional character the Tracks Collector (http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/areas-de-accion/el-cobrador-del-track/ ), an artist who tries to collect his legitimate royalties generated by works licensed under Creative Commons, which the cultural industries do not want to pay him, attracted more than *1000* fans in a single day. The (D’) Evolution action with Leo Bassi called "No pagaremos el pato/ We will Not Carry the Can for a cultural industry that does not want to reinvent itself" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4eAc4uaaZk) was the lead image in all the papers. Every day, half an hour after the end of each session at the Forum on Cultural Industries, we broadcast the edited highlights with live commentary. The edit showing Eduard Punset directly addressing the Spanish Minister, Ángeles González Sinde, which we posted online with the title La Leccion de Punset/Punset's Lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefG4P0_jRk ) had 90,000 visits in the first two days, making it one of the *5 most-watched videos* on the net. It has now exceeded *150,000 visits*. What the ministers and industries had come to Barcelona for, didn't go as planned. We were able to verify, live, that when they are watched over, our rulers are not able to favour private interests with impunity, or to implement simplistic control policies based on obsolete formulas. 1 – The speeches supporting the interests of lobbies start to get a bit uncomfortable. What they usually do behind closed doors (and will continue to do). turns against them when it is discussed in public and has to contend with arguments. This is why: a) The grand speeches aimed at industry heavyweights, promising to get rid of anything that is not controlled by the multinational industry that is monopolizing and hindering the circulation of knowledge, have been strongly contested by civil society which responded in real time, by wise men like Punset and Bauwens, by a section of some industry participants in the forum who are already working on new formats and by a few of the cultural leaders from the 27 countries, who do not always share the simplistic propaganda they are dealt. We saw how in only 24 hours, the aggressive, manipulative speech with which the spanish Ministery of culture opened the Forum, turned into ambiguous and confuse speeches, in which nothing precise is said. b) The EU Commission on Culture and Education decided not to present the Green Book on Cultural Industries during the meeting in Barcelona, as had been previously announced. Since February, they knew that the meeting would be contested on copyright issues, and we were informed that they would not present the conclusions in order to avoid “affecting internal equilibrium”. So we know that the taliban discourse is being discussed internally and we’re glad. 2 – Another phenomenon that was fascinating to watch is how, with an absent gaze, grasping at a pre-digital imaginary in a world that has already overtaken them in intelligence and capacity, they go around in circles discussing representativity. In Spain alone, right now, there are at least 300,000 people actively and openly working to defend their rights in the digital environment: "The Manifesto in Defense of Fundamental Rights on the Internet" (http://wiki.manifiestointernet.org/wiki/Página_Principal ) has been published and adopted by over 150,000 webs in Spanish, and translated into 10 languages. Its page on FaceBook currently has more than 230,000 members. RedSOStenible (http://red-sostenible.net/) has the support of 27,400 web sites. Sinde's List (http:// lalistadesinde.net), a list of web sites that self-report themselves for supposedly including illegal links, is now 1391 pages long. But many figures from the ministeries say that the proposals coming from civil society "don't represent anybody". In the current political system there are 2 key things that can irredeemably tip the balance one way or another. One of them, civil society has no access to: Money. But civil society does have access to the other thing. This second thing is precisely about “representatitvity”, which has changed its meaning since the Internet started to allow direct democracy: Votes. A person is only representative if somebody feels represented by it. The Internet represents itself, it speaks loud and clear. Each and every one of the 300,000 people who protest do not represent, but simply are, this mass movement. There is no longer a need for vertical associations in order to make ourselves heard. Passive delegation is over, whether they like it or not. We elect people every four years so that they can work in the service of the common good. The Internet has a Memory and it will remember those who approve unfare laws without the consensus of those who they "represent". Citizens have asked to be heard, and put forward solutions (http://fcforum.net ). The Ministries has denied an audience, and ignored the solutions. But the answer has been brought to us loud and clear by the ninja Van Damme (Guillermo Corral Van Damme, General Director of Policy and Cultural Industries): This is war. “We have to win the Internet war”. Politicians declare war on their constituents. If they want war, they will get war. A war where there may be no blood, but what is at stake is the intellectual and economic devastation of digital development, handed over to directors and entrepreneurs who defend obsolete monopolies and don’t allow anything else to grow around it. There is no doubt that this war will be won by civil society, just as the earth was eventually proven to be round and women ended up winning the vote. The question is when, and how much suffering and obscurantism we will be able to avoid. Fine. And we continue. An other, essential appointment, in Granada, where the EU Ministers of Telecommunications and the Information Society will meet. We will be there, because THE INTERNET WILL NOT BE ANOTHER TV (http://internetnoseraotratv.net/en/ ) Here some press realease of the event: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Vigilantes/ministros/elpepucul/20100329elpeputec_4/Tes http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Punset/Hay/tendencia/considerar/Internet/propiedad/Estado/tenemos/evitar/elpeputec/20100330elpeputec_9/Tes http://www.lavanguardia.es/cultura/noticias/20100329/53898125802/barcelona-campo-de-batalla-digital.html http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/estrella/copyright/elpepicul/20100330elpepicul_2/Tes http://www.publico.es/culturas/303643/sinde http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=700835&idseccio_PK=1009 http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/noticias/accion/comun/elpepicul/20100331elpepicul_1/Tes http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/pais.jpg http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/publico.jpg http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/665818/0/leo/bassi/internet/ http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=700611&idseccio_PK=1013 http://www.europapress.es/catalunya/noticia-alternativa-foro-industrias-culturales-ve-obsoleto-no-tener-cuenta-internet-20100329155844.html http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20100329/punset-no-se-intente-controlar-internet-como-se-hizo-mujeres/325791.shtml http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticia/3709217/protestes-control-dinternet-tanquen-concert-fossar-moreres.html http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/contracumbre/creadores/exige/nuevos/modelos/gestion/elpepicul/20100330elpepicul_1/Tes http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Compartir/archivos/crimen/elpepicul/20100330elpepicul_4/Tes http://www.abc.es/agencias/noticia.asp?noticia=329471 http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=103255 http://noticias.com/leo-bassi-contra-el-control-de-internet.198604 Contact: http://fcforum.net http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/ http://red-sostenible.net http://exgae.net From mayank at fes.org.in Mon Apr 12 10:48:02 2010 From: mayank at fes.org.in (Mayank Trivedi) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:48:02 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] IASC 2011: Reminder for Submission of Abstracts Message-ID: <4BC2FD0E.25123.89D5B4@mayank.fes.org.in> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100412/80144436/attachment-0001.html From lawrence at altlawforum.org Tue Apr 13 20:57:51 2010 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:27:51 +0300 Subject: [Commons-Law] LASSnet Conference 2: Call for Papers, December 27-30, 2010, at FLAME, Pune, India, please forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *CALL FOR PAPERS* *LASSnet 2010: Siting Law* *Second Conference of the Law and Social Sciences Research Network (LASSnet) * *DECEMBER 27-30, 2010* *Venue: Foundation for Liberal and Management Education (FLAME), Pune, India * The Law and Social Science Research Network (*LASSnet*) was established in 2008 to bring together scholars, lawyers and doctoral researchers engaged in the research and teaching of issues connected with the law in different social sciences in contemporary South Asian contexts. The idea was to create a common forum for the exchange of ideas, work, materials, pedagogies and aspirations from a range of different institutional locations and theoretical frameworks. Given how much of our understanding of the law in South Asia has been shaped by the experience of social movements, we also hoped to provide a space in which activists, legal practitioners, and academics of all stripes could get together to share experiences and reflections. The creative tensions that emerged from such conversations, we felt, might lead to new agendas for both research and practice in the future. The inaugural LASS conference was held at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawarharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, in January 2009. In the inaugural conference of *LASSnet*, we saw a number of conversations across disciplines among legal scholars, practitioners, activists, anthropologists, historians, philosophers, social theorists, political scientists, economists and science and technology scholars. For the second edition of the *LASSnet *conference we have chosen to continue with such inter-disciplinary excavations, and to venture further afield. By focussing on the multiple sites of law we seek to open out ways of thinking about the social life of law and legality and its relation to questions of violence and injustice in South Asia. We recognize that the project of modern law emerged through the universalizing of a particular form of rationality and established itself in a large part of the world through the violent history of colonialism. The project of law and the project of modernity often became synonymous, and legal scholarship also tended to reproduce this relationship. We are therefore interested in enquiries that critique monolithic forms of legal rationality. If the project of critiquing is to have any relevance, it is in its ability to conjure possibilities and alternatives that have remained unimagined. Thus another way of thinking about the relationship between law and the social sciences would be through the metaphor of ‘sighting law’, which invites us to look at a range of social practices which have either been marginalized as custom or dismissed as affect and hence deemed irrelevant to legal theory. To be attentive to the multiple sites of law is also to be attentive to the role played by the social sciences - particularly anthropology and history- in opening out the way we think of law as a cultural and not merely as a legal process. *LASSnet* seeks to extend the ways in which the law can be ‘cited’ in other disciplines, and we hope that the sub themes of this edition of the conference allows us to collectively explore the diversity of forms that may exist, both within the formal legal structure as well as outside it. The routes which social scientists and legal scholars took to the sites of law, and the methodologies that they developed have traditionally been accounted for in terms of their differences. We wish to see this difference as being precisely the common ground on which we stand, and as the basis on which we can cite scholarship about legal experience differently. *CONFERENCE SUB-THEMES* While the Steering Committee will make its selection from as wide a basis as possible, we would particularly welcome presentations that address the following themes, which we see as especially interesting to consider in the contemporary South Asian context. Please note that the sub-themes are merely illustrative of the goals of the conference and are not exhaustive. *1. Law’s Publics: Counter legalities and Counter Publics * The law often claims to have an unmediated access to the public, for instance in Public Interest Litigation or in the determination of what counts as legitimate public purpose. Struggles for the recognition of socio-economic rights and dignity have often been premised on the claimants being recognized as legitimate public actors. What role is played by the law in the constitution of a public, and what role is played by the notion of a public in thinking about the legitimacy of the law? Conversely, what role is played by the law in the constitution of the hybrid realm of public-private entities which facilitate the flows of a globalised capital? Is the valorized language of illegality the only means of expressing resistance to law, or can political struggles, marked by their inability to be properly constituted in the sphere of liberal legality, resurface as counter publics who nevertheless stake a claim to legitimacy? In a time of ever more inventive forms of neo-liberal violence, how can counter-publics avoid capture by a legal apparatus intent on re-territorialising the terrain of the political? *2. Law like Love: Law and Affect* The ‘affective turn’ in the social sciences is beginning to speak to legal debates. How do we begin to undertake a genealogy of the affective life of law in which reason and unreason intermingle? To explore the affective life of law is to understand the ‘body of law’ not merely as an archive of legal judgments, but to engage seriously with ideas of corporeality in law, and to acknowledge that the power of law emanates as much from its affective force as its symbolic power. How does the law deal with this messy world of affect and emotion, and what are the ways through which inter disciplinary scholarship can redress the historic disavowal of affect in legal scholarship? * * *3. The Careers of Constitutionalism in South Asia* Constitutions as a genre have deep roots within the histories of European universalism. The emergence and experience of postcolonial transformative constitutions, marked by a different relation to questions of justice, time and memory, have significantly altered this universal narrative. How do we account for the various histories of this transformative, and even insurgent constitutionalism? At the same time there seems to be a tension between the constitution as a text of governance and text of rights. How do we critically uncover other histories and sites through which we can understand the careers of constitutionalism in South Asia? Finally, how does contemporary constitutional theory respond to the challenges posed by the emergence of the new global economic constitutionalism? *4. Theatres of Justice* Living as we do in an age saturated by hyper-science and hyper-media, we have a plurality of places in which legal norms are produced. The blurring of the lines between media, science and culture makes it imperative for us to explore the new and emerging sites of legal meaning. There is sometimes even a blurring of these spaces, as evidenced in various reality TV shows that mimic the structure of the courts. How for instance do ideas of expertise move from the laboratory to the court and back? How do images of legality produced in a studio serve as the basis of a new legal imagination? How are we to understand these multiple scenes of the law, in which the formal judicial process appears as one of the many competing actors in the theatres of justice? *INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION* In keeping with the eclectic spirit of LASSnet, we welcome submissions that address concerns of the *LASSnet* broadly, including papers, panels, and presentations on the four sub-themes detailed above. *We welcome proposals for panels as well as for individual paper presentations.* *Panel proposals*: Panel coordinators should submit a panel description of 300 words as well as a proposed list of panelists (ideally no more than four per panel). The panel description should be accompanied by individual paper proposals for each panelist, following the instructions below. Coordinators may also choose to propose a chair or discussant for the panel as a whole. *Individual papers*: Paper abstracts (300 words) should be submitted to Siddharth Narrain and Sruti Chaganti at lassnet2010 at gmail.com. Abstracts may be in Word, WordPerfect, or RTF formats, following this order: author(s), affiliation, email address, title of abstract, body of abstract. Abstracts should be submitted no later than July 1, 2010. We will get back to you within eight weeks of receiving an abstract. If an abstract is accepted for the conference, a full draft paper should be submitted to the conference secretariat by November 15, 2010 and distributed to the discussant and fellow panel members no later than December 01, 2010. In the case of pre-formed panels, this will be the responsibility of the Panel Coordinator. The maximum duration of individual presentations within each panel will be 20 minutes. Further announcements about registration, funding and venue related details will be made available at www.lassnet.blogspot.com and (in due course) www.lassnet.org. Please contact Siddharth Narrain or Sruti Chaganti ( lassnet2010 at gmail.com) for additional information. * * *STEERING COMMITTEE FOR LASSnet 2010:* Lawrence Liang (lawrence at altlawforum.org), Alternative Law Forum (ALF) ( www.altlawforum.org) Siddharth Narrain (siddharth.narrain at gmail.com), ALF Sitharamam Kakarala (ram at cscs.res.in), Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS) (www.cscsarchive.org ) Sruti Chaganti (sruti at cscs.res.in), CSCS Maya Dodd (mayadodd at gmail.com), Foundation for Liberal and Management Education (FLAME), Pune (www.flame.edu.in) Pratiksha Baxi *[LASSnet anchor]* (Pratiksha.Baxi at gmail.com), Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Shrimoyee Ghosh (shrimoyee at gmail.com), CSLG, JNU Stewart Motha (S.Motha at kent.ac.uk), Kent Law School, UK Arudra Burra (arudraburra at yahoo.co.in), Princeton University, US Brenna Bhandar (brenna.bhandar at gmail.com), Kent Law School, UK Anuj Bhuwania (anujbhuwania at gmail.com), Columbia University, US -- Law and Social Sciences Research Network, Anchored by the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi lassnet at gmail.com http://lassnet.blogspot.com/ www.lassnet.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100413/c53d6681/attachment-0001.html From artscapeindia at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 15:36:16 2010 From: artscapeindia at gmail.com (Art, Resources & Teaching) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:36:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Art Education Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, A.R.T. is conducting a survey on art education in India. We invite art students, academics, artists and art professionals to participate. Please answer one of the attached questionnaires, most relevant to you and email it to us by Thursday, 22nd April, 2010. Your responses will be analyzed to develop an improved design for a contemporary art center, museum, studio and residency space. Please email completed questionnaires to info at artscapeindia.org. We will appreciate your participation in this survey. Art, Resources & Teaching Trust (A.R.T.), Casa Andree II, First Floor, No.8 B 1, Andree Road, Shanti Nagar, Bangalore 560 027 +91.80.4112.4556 info at artscapeindia.org www.artscapeindia.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100415/889d219a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questionnaire for Academics.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100415/889d219a/attachment-0004.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questionnaire for Art Professionals.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100415/889d219a/attachment-0005.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questionnaire for Artists.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31744 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100415/889d219a/attachment-0006.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questionnaire for Students.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100415/889d219a/attachment-0007.doc From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 21 14:35:37 2010 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:05:37 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Fwd: Open Letter to Barack Obama from Indian health groups] Message-ID: <32e16fc5b1d6c79b79016f55979e030a.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> (bwo Toni Prug) http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2010-April/014857.html IP battles, India Vs CorporateUSA - might be interesting for one of the Indian lists you're on, like http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/ it's a fascinating read! toni --------------------------------------------------------------------- [Ip-health] Open Letter to Barack Obama from Indian health groups Judit Rius Sanjuan judit.rius at keionline.org Sun Apr 18 02:14:01 2010 We have been asked to distribute this Open Letter to Barack Obama from Indian health groups, expresssing the concern over USPTO's attack on Public health safeguards of Indian Patent Law OPEN LETTER TO THE US PRESIDENT FROM INDIAN HEALTH GROUPS 13 April 2010 Dear Mr. President, We, the undersigned public interest, health and patients groups in India, write to express our support for the principle of universal healthcare for all persons. We believe that every human being regardless of class, sex, religion, citizenship, insurance or any other status has a right to the highest attainable standard of health. Given your stated commitment and recognition of universal healthcare for US citizens, we are surprised and confused by the actions of the United States Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the US embassy in India whose commitments appear to be to advocate against India=92s own attempts to safeguard public health and ensure universal access to healthcare. India's patent law public health safeguards A key factor influencing the fulfilment of the right to health is the price of medicines. Artificial monopolies created by patents on medicines contribute significantly to obscene prices that keep medicines beyond the reach of the majority of Indians. As a member of the WTO, India had to comply fully with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement to provide patent protection on medicines in 2005. It has done so in 2005. The Indian parliament, mindful of its obligations under the Indian Constitution and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), balanced its obligations under TRIPS by including in India=92s Patent law several public health safeguards including a prohibition on evergreening =96 a tactic employed by pharmaceutical companies of extending patent monopolies by making minor changes to existing medicines. It also used several TRIPS flexibilities to ensure access to medicines in India and across the developing world. However, instead of respecting India=92s sovereign right to determine how best to balance its competing obligations, we find that the US government is actively advocating against the public health safeguards in India=92s patent law and even pushing TRIPS-plus measures like data exclusivity and patent linkages in India. Generic competition and global access to medicines The revolution in access to HIV treatment around the world started with an offer from an Indian generic company in 2001 of providing first line HIV medicines at $350 as opposed to the prices being offered by patent holders of $10,000 per patient per year. Today, generic competition has resulted in first line HIV medicines being provided around the world for less than $90 per patient per year. The offer of safe, effective and affordable generics combined with large scale political commitment and funding from the international community including the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to allow the historic scale up of HIV treatment across the world. Indeed the necessity for safe, effective and affordable generics is evidenced most clearly by PEPFAR. As noted in PEPFAR=92s 5th annual report, a 2007 survey showed that 73% of ARVs delivered by PEPFAR and 93% delivered through PEPFAR=92s Supply Chain Management System (scms) project were generic formulations. PEPFAR partners saved an estimated $64 million =96 a 46% reduction in the cost of drugs =96 by buying generic versions instead of innovator drugs. UNICEF, the International Drug Agency, the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria, the Clinton Foundation and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as well as the governments of developing and least developed countries, all rely heavily on Indian generics to be able to provide the maximum number of patients with treatment and medicines for several diseases and conditions including HIV, heart disease, cancer, mental illness, vaccines, etc. Several patients in these countries also rely on Indian generics that they individually import from India where their governments are unable or unwilling to provide them access to medicines and treatment. Approximately, 50% of the essential medicines that UNICEF distributes in developing countries come from India and 75-80% of all medicines distributed by the International Dispensary Association (IDA) are manufactured in India. We would also like to point out that 67 % of medicines exports from India go to developing countries. India=92s ability to continue supplying safe, effective and affordable generics to its own citizens and to most of the developing and least developed world depends on the continued and balanced use of TRIPS flexibilities. It is may be worth noting that during this period when Indian generics have sustained the lives of millions across the world, the US based multinational pharmaceutical industry has been none the worse for it as evidenced by their ever increasing profits. USPTO-Pfizer meetings in India Despite all this, we find that that the US embassy along with the USPTO has tied up with multinational pharmaceutical company Pfizer in holding meetings across the country pushing a TRIPS-plus agenda. The meetings also raise ethical concerns with a regulatory body like the USPTO tying up with a company that it is supposed to regulate. The meetings being held by the USPTO and Pfizer appear to be designed to circumvent the 2007 New Trade Policy Template which includes removing demands for patent linkages and recognising the full extent of the flexibilities re-affirmed by the Doha Declaration. It is precisely these flexibilities that are under attack at the USPTO- Pfizer meetings. Apart from pushing for TRIPS-plus provisions like data exclusivity and patent linkages in India, the USPTO has also been actively speaking against Section 3(d), the provision in India=92s patent law prohibiting evergreening. We also take this opportunity to point out that the USPTO presentations at these meetings are, at best, deliberately misleading on international, US and Indian law and policy. This includes misleading statements on Article 39.3 of TRIPS, on the impact of the US Supreme Court=92s KSR judgment, the role of the WHO on matters related to IPR and public health as well as a number of misrepresentations on Indian law and policy. We enclose notes from the Delhi USPTO-Pfizer meeting for your reference. Pfizer The choice of Pfizer as a partner for the USPTO meeting is telling. In Asia, Pfizer is well known for its tactics in the Philippines to delay generic entry of medicines. Most notable was their litigation against the use of the Bolar exemption by the Philippines FDA followed by its litigation to enforce patent linkages. More recently, Pfizer has been embroiled in bribery allegations in the Philippines; a matter the US Departments of Justice and Commerce are now being asked to consider under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the US, Pfizer has just settled numerous complaints related to unethical drug promotion with a massive fine of $US 2.3 billion. USPTO Regrets! When public interest groups and the media responded to the unethical lobbying practices of the USPTO-Pfizer duo in India, Mr. Peter Pappas, the Chief Communications Officer of USPTO posted an official statement in the blog of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) as a response to one of the blog postings. In which, Mr. Pappas stated =93... a single program late last year in India where a mistake was made and Pfizer was invited to co-sponsor a public discussion program. The USPTO has since taken corrective action so that this will not happen again. Contrary to what you suggest, however, it is not the USPTO's policy or practice to involve private sector rights holders as co-sponsors of our events. We regret that this occurred with respect to the Indian forum, but that was the exception and not the rule.=94 Though, USPTO officially regretted associating with Pfizer, we feel that it has the moral duty to send regret letters to all the invitees and participants of the event. A note on a website is not sufficient in this regard. It has to be noted that scores of public interest and patient groups as well as media persons were invited and grossly misinformed by the USPTO-Pfizer duo. In this regard, we also seek apology from US Embassy in India and First Secretary for Intellectual Property for associating with Pfizer as against the official Policy or practices of the USPTO. We also urge you launch a formal investigation into the links between the USPTO in India and Pfizer and to take necessary action against the officials concerned for misinforming the Indian media and the general public about its own Patent laws and public health safe guards and officials who teamed up with Pfizer to engage in unethical lobbying practices with various stake holders in the field of access to medicines in India. What of the WHO resolution on Global Strategy on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights? In May 2009, the United States along with all the members of the WHO put the final touches on the Global Strategy on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights (the =93Global Strategy=94). The Global Strategy, signed in May 2008 recognises that the patent system has not delivered on medicines for neglected diseases which affect the developing and least developed world the most. It also recognises that the use of TRIPS flexibilities can facilitate access to pharmaceutical products for developing countries. This is precisely what India is doing and what the US should be supporting. However, instead of the US government promoting new thinking on IPR, innovation and access, we find that financial and technical resources of the USPTO/US embassy are being ploughed back into their old strategy of promoting TRIPS-plus measures and undermining the use of TRIPS-flexibilities in India based on widely discredited arguments that these will assist India in achieving access to medicines. We cannot stress enough the impact of these actions being at the cost not only of Indian citizens but of millions across the developing and least developed world. This level of aggressiveness being displayed by the USPTO and the US embassy on matters related to intellectual property rights is something we have not witnessed in the eight years of the previous administration. The actions of the USPTO and US embassy actions in India are a direct threat to India=92s continued ability to be the =93pharmacy of the developing world.=94 We ask that the US immediately cease their activities in India in promoting ever increasing intellectual property protection and TRIPS- plus measures and in lobbying against the use of TRIPS-flexibilities by the Indian Parliament. We also ask that: =95 The US should disengage from any activities that hamper the utilisation of TRIPS flexibilities in developing and least developed countries; =95 The US should not use any diplomatic/economic/financial tools such as super 301 to enforce TRIPS-plus agenda in developing and least developed countries; and =95 The US should not attack the domestic policy space of the developing and least developed countries which is available under various treaties, to further the business interests of its pharmaceutical companies. The stakes are high for us; we are fighting for our lives and health and we are keen to see where the new US administration will place itself in this battle. Sincerely, National Working Group on Patent Law (NWGPL) All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN) Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA) Centre for Trade and Development (Centad) Drug Action Forum, Karnataka (DAF-K) Delhi Science Forum (DSF) Delhi Network of Positive People (DNP+) International Treatment Preparedness Coalition =96 India (ITPC =96 India) Knowledge Commons Initiative for Health Equity & Society (IHES) Diverse Women for Diversity All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) Action Aid India Centre for Education and Communication=92 (CEC) Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health Centre for Health and Social Justice (CHSJ) Cc: US Embassy in India From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Apr 21 20:30:59 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:00:59 +0800 Subject: [Commons-Law] IBSA joint statement on IPR Message-ID: Dear all, bwo Everton Lucero on the IG list: "FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the 4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and 16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras. 6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8)." The paragraphs on IPR: > Intellectual Property Rights > > 12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in > addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food > security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate > change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for > a balanced international intellectual property system capable of > meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the > technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full > implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual > Property Organization (WIPO). > > 13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules > on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate > fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the > protection of rights, the building of barriers against > free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights. > > 14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous > application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic > medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World > Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to > developing countries access to medicines. From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Apr 21 17:54:44 2010 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:24:44 +0800 Subject: [Commons-Law] India Copyright Amendment Bill Message-ID: <4BCEEE8C.6030705@gmail.com> Dear all, A bill to amend the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Monday. This bill can be accessed from the website of the NGO Parliamentary Research Services (PRS): http://bit.ly/prs-copyright (image PDF, 4.8 MB) This bill has a long history, including a very notable public consultation in 2006. It is indeed heartening to see that some of the suggestions that various public interest groups put forward then have found reflection in the bill. The bill, on the whole, tries to bring India in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), which in many areas increase the scope of copyright protection, while India has signed neither and is under no obligation to do so. The reasons for doing so are not apparent, but some cite pressures from the United States in the form of the Special 301 reports as a contributor. There are important changes with respect to exceptions and compulsory licensing for persons with disabilities (which are not far-reaching enough), technological protection measures and rights management information (i.e., DRMs) (which are a far sight better than the DMCA, but is missing some important safeguards, without which such a provision is still quite harmful), parallel importation, rationalisation of the existing Act, etc. The 2006 draft can be accessed here from the CIS website (it is no longer available on the Copyright Office website): http://bit.ly/cis-copyright-2006 (text PDF) The comments submitted in 2006 by the Alternative Law Forum, along with numerous other groups can be downloaded here: http://bit.ly/alf-copyright-response (text PDF) CIS will soon be putting up a version of the Copyright Act as it would stand post-amendment, to enable easier understanding of the amendments. Regards, Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100421/1f17f005/attachment.bin From hart at pglaf.org Wed Apr 21 21:39:40 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] [CopySouth] India Copyright Amendment Bill In-Reply-To: <4BCEEDE8.4030104@cis-india.org> References: <4BCEEDE8.4030104@cis-india.org> Message-ID: I notice this announcement very studiously avoids any mention at all of the new copyright period, or even of term extension. Might I possibly suggest that this be resent with it included? It is hard on some of us to forward information without such. Thanks! Thanks!!! Give eBooks in 2010!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg Inventor of eBooks Recommended Books: Dandelion Wine, by Ray Bradbury: For The Right Brain Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand: For The Left Brain [or both] Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson: To Understand The Internet The Phantom Tollbooth, by Norton Juster: Lesson of Life. . . If you ever do not get a prompt response, please resend, then keep resending, I won't mind getting several copies per week. On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > A bill to amend the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 was introduced in the > Rajya Sabha on Monday. This bill can be accessed from the website of > the NGO Parliamentary Research Services (PRS): > http://bit.ly/prs-copyright (image PDF, 4.8 MB) > > This bill has a long history, including a very notable public > consultation in 2006. It is indeed heartening to see that some of the > suggestions that various public interest groups put forward then have > found reflection in the bill. > > The bill, on the whole, tries to bring India in line with the WIPO > Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty > (WPPT), which in many areas increase the scope of copyright protection, > while India has signed neither and is under no obligation to do so. The > reasons for doing so are not apparent, but some cite pressures from the > United States in the form of the Special 301 reports as a contributor. > > There are important changes with respect to exceptions and compulsory > licensing for persons with disabilities (which are not far-reaching > enough), technological protection measures and rights management > information (i.e., DRMs) (which are a far sight better than the DMCA, > but is missing some important safeguards, without which such a provision > is still quite harmful), parallel importation, rationalisation of the > existing Act, etc. > > The 2006 draft can be accessed here from the CIS website (it is no > longer available on the Copyright Office website): > http://bit.ly/cis-copyright-2006 (text PDF) > > The comments submitted in 2006 by the Alternative Law Forum, along with > numerous other groups can be downloaded here: > http://bit.ly/alf-copyright-response (text PDF) > > CIS will soon be putting up a version of the Copyright Act as it would > stand post-amendment, to enable easier understanding of the amendments. > > Regards, > Pranesh > > From patrice at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 22 14:12:55 2010 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] costs of piracy (2) Message-ID: <4d1d0dcc5373bb88014414d91e432f89.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> bwo Nettime-nl / Bert de Muynck "Illegal Copying" is a piece written about the phenomenon of the underground architectural booksellers and their trade in illegally copied architecture books, DVD's and magazines. Location: Beijing, China. Original pirate material! movingmemo http://movingcities.org/movingmemos/illegal-copying-publication/ full text http://movingcities.org/bertdemuynck/on-china/illegal-copying-publication/ (in reply to Tania Goryucheva - see prev cl post) From patrice at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 22 19:44:02 2010 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:14:02 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] New Documentary Film "Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system"] Message-ID: <6a7b4d2f113887f579610cbb44cd9cfd.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> bwo nettime-l/Jaromil FYI - this is all very relevant, considering the financial crisis, the nature of the Bilsky suggests the urgence to leave doors open to new models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski hopefully Europe won't be so stupid give up to such a patent system. We should fight this absurdity so that it doesn't happens anywhere - and while we are busy with that, it looks like there is a bright future for the BRICO countries eh... J. - ----- Forwarded message ----- New documentary film "Patent Absurdity" is set to expose how the judicial activism that led to the patenting of software has broken the US patent system's promise of promoting the progress of science and useful arts http://www.fsf.org/news/new-documentary-film-patent-absurdity BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Monday, April 19th, 2010 -- The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today announced the online release of the documentary film "Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system" by independent filmmaker Luca Lucarini. http://patentabsurdity.com/ The film, funded with a grant from the FSF, explores the case of software patents, the history of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court's review of *in re Bilski*, a case that could have profound implications for the patenting of software. "The *Bilski* case before the Supreme Court is really the story of the judicial activism of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who during the 80s and 90s became dominated by patent lawyers who wanted an expansive reading of patent law. They opened the floodgates to the patenting of software ideas and business methods, previously held by the Supreme Court to be unpatentable subject matter. The price of that activism is being paid by today's programmers, who find it increasingly difficult to write software without risking being sued, and by businesses who have to face increased litigation and legal fees. Software patents block compatibility and standards, make programmers remove useful features, and are the cause of unknown amounts of frustration in the daily life of many individuals," said Ciaran O'Riordan, the director of the End Software Patents campaign, and a technical adviser to the filmmakers. Dr. Robert Shafer, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University, who created a free, publicly available HIV Drug Resistance Database to interpret HIV drug resistance tests and develop new HIV drugs (located at http://hivdb.stanford.edu/), described the film in light of the way software patents have hampered his work: "I'm glad to see a film that can explain the harm of software patents. I'm also looking forward to a favorable outcome in the *Bilski* case. However, biomedical researchers, medical care providers, and their patients cannot afford to wait the many years it will take before any Supreme Court decision has a practical effect on existing patents. There is a hardcore group of special interests who profit from the system the way it is now -- the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, patent examiners who essentially receive credit for their work only when they issue or uphold patents, and the patent bar which benefits from cross-licensing and patent litigation regardless of how ridiculous a patent is. One of the saddest aspects of my experience has been to learn that the influence of the patent bar is expanding rapidly within universities through their offices of technology licensing." Featured interviewees in the film include economists Ben Klemens and James Bessen, and legal scholars Dan Ravicher, Eben Moglen and Karen Sandler. The film also includes footage of the press conference at the Supreme Court organized on behalf of plaintiffs Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, and their lawyer J. Michael Jakes. Speaking about the release of the film, Luca Lucarini said, "I hope that my film can bring to light the harm that the US patent system is inflicting on our society through software patents. The goal of the documentary is to increase the number of informed citizens educated to take action, and so it has been licensed to allow everyone to share and distribute copies of the film." "Patent Absurdity" is available under the Creative Commons BY-ND (Attribution-No Derivative Works) license, which encourages sharing and widespread redistribution by all who receive a copy. The film was made entirely with free software, in the Ogg Theora format. Because anyone can show the film, the web site is compiling a list of screenings, including a premiere at the Connecticut Film Festival http://www.ctfilmfest.com. Highlighted Early Reviews: "...probably the best introduction to a complex area for non-technical users" --Glyn Moody, ComputerWorld "It’s well worth watching, both for the opportunity to see so many of the people who are influential in software freedom philosophy and law and for the great explanations of the issues around the *Bilski* case and the mission creep which has led to software patents. Share it with friends, as this issue is only going to get more important as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) promotes criminalization of patent infringement." --Simon Phipps, board member of Open Source for America and the Open Source Initiative "It's a 30-minute movie, mostly of interviews. There's a great Beethoven symphony at the end that starts to degrade as music patents spring up... In short, it's priceless." --Pamela Jones, Groklaw About the Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software — particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants — and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software, and its Web sites, located at fsf.org and gnu.org, are an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA. About Free Software and Open Source The free software movement's goal is freedom for computer users. Some, especially corporations, advocate a different viewpoint, known as "open source," which cites only practical goals such as making software powerful and reliable, focuses on development models, and avoids discussion of ethics and freedom. These two viewpoints are different at the deepest level. For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. Media Contacts Peter Brown Executive Director Free Software Foundation +1 (617) 319 5832 info-fsf mailing list info-fsf at gnu.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-fsf - ----- End forwarded message ----- From patrice at xs4all.nl Sat Apr 24 01:45:08 2010 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:15:08 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Fwd: The Return of DRM] Message-ID: With usual apps for X-posting ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: The Return of DRM From: "Felix Stalder" Date: Fri, April 23, 2010 13:56 To: nettime-l at kein.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In early 2007, Steve Jobs (of all people!) concluded in his 'Thoughts on Music' that "DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work" [1]. Soon after, one label after the other started selling music in "unstricted" [2] formats, and there was much celebration about the death of DRM. And, there were lots of reasons see things this way: Digital Rights Management Systems were very unpopular with the public. People hated them. Plain and simple. And they were technically unstable, because the encryption, once released to the public, was regularly broken within a few days. And attempts to re- engineer the entire computer operating system to make DRM possible -- Windows Vista -- turned out be be equally unpopular and fraught with internal problems. Fast-forward three years. Increasingly, our data is up in the clouds. The decentralized architectures for digital production of the 1990s are being phased-out. Google is pushing an operating system (Chrome) were all data is being stored online and virtually nothing remains on the computer. The device which individuals own is being reduced to a relatively dumb terminal. The apple IPad, it seems, is optimized for consumption (and thus hailed as the savior of the old, consumer oriented media industries). Much of online social interaction and production takes place on vast, centralized platforms. The older DIY approaches -- from mailing lists to independently run networks such as Indymedia and even p2p networks -- are fading away and are supplanted by super-professional service approaches. There are lots of reasons, and some of them very good ones, for this development. That's not my concern at the moment. More remarkable is that part of this development is the return of DRM. This time, not out in the open, accessible to the user, but completely hidden, built into the deep structure of the platforms themselves. The case in point here is YouTube. It has morphed from a freewheeling platform where users could share whatever they wanted, to a highly controlled system, where all content is scanned and mointored for copyright violation. According to YouTube itself, this works the following way [3]: > Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) > of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies > on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match. > > We compare videos uploaded to YouTube against those reference files. > > Our technology automatically identifies your content and applies > your preferred policy: monetize, track, or block. As they conclude it: "It's up to you." Which sounds great, it's up to you, until one realizes, that are not speaking to us, but to the big content owners. Much of the work done by YouTube and other platforms has been to put the content industry back in control, even though it's a control controlled by the platform providers. So there is considerable tension among the old and new players in the media industries, but as they work out their differences, users are becoming becoming more precarious, more dependent, and more controlled. And the tool to do this is ubiquitous DRM. Each and every file on YouTube is processed through their DRM and, of possible, made entirely dependent on arbitrary decisions of content owners, who can now, at any moment, make disappear files that include portions of their content. A few days ago, Constantin Film decided to use their option and had all films which contained portions of their Hitler melodrama "Downfall (Untergang)" deleted from YouTube. There were hundreds of clips, since changing the subtitles of the scene where Hitler realizes that the war was lost had become a subgenre in itself. [4] This DRM systems know no fair use exemption. Control is total. There is no problem of the files being re- uploaded, the system is effective, real-time and scales effortlessly. And the better YouTube and others become at this, the more pressure will be applied on those platforms which have not yet implemented something similar. Which, it seems easy to predict, will lead to a further concentration in this already highly concentrated field. Of course, individually each of us can be smart enough to avoid these things, and many of us are members in closed file-sharing communities that function without such restrictions. But, socially, we can see how control is creeping back, how DRM is becoming part of the infrastructure, and how it is affecting our speech and culture in ways that are neither predictable nor accountable. With a flip of a button, one which you have no access to, all your nice little remixes can disappear, even if they were online for a long time. It's all up to them! Felix PS: Of course, there is a Hitler parody of this removal up online. Just not on Youtube. http://www.vimeo.com/11086952 How long will it take vimeo to implement their own DRM? [1] http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ [2] mp3, is, of course, a proprietary format, and thus restricted, but most people were only interested in copy-restrictions, and not patent issue. [3] http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid [4] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/attack-on-hitler- parodies-now-newest-front-in-copyright-wars.ars --- http://felix.openflows.com ----------------------- books out now: *|Deep Search.The Politics of Search Beyond Google.Studienverlag 2009 *|Mediale Kunst/Media Arts Zurich.13 Positions.Scheidegger&Spiess2008 *|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Polity, 2006 *|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed. Futura/Revolver, 2005 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Apr 26 18:15:11 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:15:11 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] New 'Development Agenda Group' Seeks Transformation of WIPO Message-ID: <4BD58AD7.8090708@cis-india.org> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/26/new-wipo-development-agenda-group-seeks-transformation-of-un-agency/ Intellectual Property Watch **26 April 2010** ## New WIPO Development Agenda Group Seeks Transformation Of UN Agency By Kaitlin Mara and William New @ 2:24 pm Ongoing efforts to implement the 2007 Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization took another twist today as a new group was launched representing developing countries seeking full transformation of the United Nations body toward a development-oriented perspective on intellectual property issues. The WIPO Committee on Development and IP is meeting from 26-30 April. The 2007 Development Agenda agreement represented “a milestone” in achieving a “paradigm shift in the international perspective of intellectual property,” said the delegation of Egypt on behalf of the new group, according to a copy of its opening statement, available here [pdf]. “While the inception of the Development Agenda marked a watershed re-balancing of the global perspective on IP, the mainstreaming and implementation of these recommendations presents a considerable challenge.” [pdf]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Development-Agenda-Group.pdf The Development Agenda is a shift from “viewing IP as an end in itself to viewing it as a means to serve larger public goals of social, economic and cultural development,” the statement added. Also new for this week are two reports from the WIPO secretariat: the director general’s [report on the implementation of the Development Agenda][1]; and a report on WIPO’s [contribution to the UN Millennium Development Goals][2]. [1]: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=131762 [2]: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=131628 In addition, as the Development Agenda is currently in its implementation phase, there is a series of updates on projects at different stages of acceptance and implementation being reviewed this week. Also on the agenda for the week are discussions on a monitoring and coordination mechanism for the implementation of the Development Agenda. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry in his opening remarks said the main challenge after the 2007 General Assembly approved the Development Agenda was how to “operationalise” its 45 approved recommendations, sources said. It was understood, Gurry added, that the Development Agenda would not only be projects, but that project methodology was expected to give concrete content and momentum to the implementation. WIPO recognises that “each and every” element of the organisation must take development into account, Gurry said, but added that the extent to which development is “mainstreamed” is up to the member governments. He also said a measuring instrument would help members track the budget related to the Development Agenda in a transparent way. At least one developing country told the plenary that it wanted the secretariat to take a more proactive role in ensuring mainstreaming, sources said. In general in opening remarks today, developing countries appeared not to be critical of efforts so far but put a bigger vision on work going forward. Developed countries generally advanced the view that significant work on implementation and on IP and development has already been done and continues to be done. Development Agenda Group The “Development Agenda Group,” or DAG, is committed to mainstreaming the development dimension into all areas of WIPO’s work, using a set of guiding principles. A paper on these principles is expected to become an official CDIP document this week, and is also available as a part of the DAG statement linked above. The DAG so far consists of: Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uruguay and Yemen. But group members have said any WIPO member who commits to the group’s set of principles may join. The DAG said it “aims at coalition building among pro-development groups and member states across regions, and comprises countries at different levels of development.” It is traditional within WIPO to form negotiating groups, usually along geographic lines but also on basis of a common position. There has also long been a cross-regional group of developed nations – the so-called “Group B” – in which developed countries holding most of the world’s IP rights negotiates as a bloc. The DAG was set up because “there has been no cross-regional issue- and interest-based group of developing countries,” a delegate from the group told Intellectual Property Watch. The Friends of Development group that ushered the Development Agenda negotiations along during several years “died a natural death” after the Agenda’s adoption. The new group is not being formed out of concern that the implementation is not going well, the delegate said, but rather to lend focus to the goal of mainstreaming the development dimension in all aspects of the organisation. Coordination Mechanism There are also a set of proposals for a coordination mechanism to handle and assess implementation work related to the agenda. These proposals are from the Group B and from Algeria, Brazil and Pakistan. These two proposals were discussed at length at the last CDIP 16-20 November, with the Algeria, Brazil, Pakistan proposal gaining an official co-sponsorship from India and the support of a “like-minded” group of developing countries ([*IPW*, WIPO, 20 November 2009][3]). [3]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/20/delegates-look-to-april-for-consensus-on-development-agenda-coordination/ An informal document combining the two proposals was also made at the negotiations in November, and may come up in discussions of the formal texts this week. A copy of it is [available here][4] [pdf]. [4]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/compilation-of-proposals.pdf -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Apr 27 22:31:55 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:31:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] IP Watchlist 2010 Message-ID: <4BD71883.1030700@cis-india.org> Consumer International's IP Watchlist 2010 has been published. While many changes have been made to the methodology, learning from feedback on last year's survey, India, Israel, the United States, Lebanon and Indonesia are still near the top. Report in Ars Technica by Nate Anderson: http://arst.ch/j1w When the US entertainment industry looks at India, it sees one gigantic copyright problem. That's why it wants India to remain on the US government's "Priority Watch List" for intellectual property issues in 2010, and that's why it [blasted the country's new copyright proposals][1] for (among other things) having too many legal reasons to bypass DRM. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/indias-copyright-proposals-are-un-american-and-thats-bad.ars But what happens when you look at India from the perspective of culture and consumers? The country comes out number one. ### Finding your balance That's the result of the recent Consumers International "[IP Watchlist 2010][2]," a document that hopes to balance the perspective of the entertainment industry by looking at the same issues around the world from the point of view of citizens' rights and access to knowledge. [2]: http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist Unfortunately for consumers, the study "is unable to report any overall improvement in the global state of access to knowledge for consumers in 2010. Rather, we see consumers' interests still being sidelined as lawmakers rushed to meet the never-ending demands of lobbyists for the entertainment and media conglomerates, who shaped domestic and international laws with their hyperbolic talk of piracy, theft, and organized crime." The document doesn't make a plea to get rid of copyright, but instead to "see more balance [brought] into the equation." Although rightsholder lobbying groups often portray their concerns as a mere matter of living up to "international standards," Consumers International contends that these "standards" are often illusory. For example, the IIPA (which represents the RIAA, MPAA, and many others) recently complained to the US government that many countries around the world lack a dedicated anti-camcorder law. This is clearly high on Hollywood's agenda, and has in fact been [written into the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) draft][3] already. [3]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars But it's not in the existing treaties that define "international standards," and Consumers International points out that using a camcorder in a movie theater is "already an infringement of copyright" in most countries. While the industry might like to see specific criminal penalties in such cases, such claims "bear no relation to standards set in international law" and should certainly not be grounds for the US to put a country on some industry-driven "watch list." When countries are ranked for consumer-friendly copyright regimes by Consumers International, India, Lebanon, Israel, the United States, and Indonesia topped the list. In the bottom 10 are countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, Kenya, and Japan. The rankings don't correlate with national wealth, but the best-ranked countries all have "copyright exceptions that are broad and general" (like US fair use law) rather than limited and specific exemptions. The drafters of the study aren't naive about piracy, but they clearly don't see its effect through the same lens used by the big copyright holders. "It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India," says the [India country report][4]. "However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. [4]: http://a2knetwork.org/reports/india "Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Physically challenged persons have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works in a suitable format." Similarly, when it comes to problems created by the free sharing of copyrighted works over the Internet, Consumers International recommends new business models such as a voluntary blanket license for music, sales of physical merchandise, public or corporate patronage, or licensing works for use in TV shows, movies, etc. All such alternative business models are terrific ideas and absolutely need to be explored, though the report does feel at times too dismissive of the real challenges brought about by online infringement and the general effect that such infringement has on eroding support for the very idea of "copyright." Still, as a corrective to the entertainment industry that wants India watched closely by the US for even thinking about [mandating open source software][5] or Indian-produced code in government computers, it's quite a helpful piece of work. [5]: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/big-content-condemns-foreign-governments-that-endorse-foss.ars And it nicely illustrates that point that many times, what you look for determines what you find. When the IIPA looked it India this year, it saw one of the worst copyright offenders on the planet, one that needs the corrective help of the US government to do things the right way. When India is considered from another perspective, it comes out of top for entirely different reasons. ### Common ground (seriously!) It's not all disagreement, though; both the entertainment industry and Consumers International agree that the US has one of the best intellectual property systems on the planet. That finding bolsters the Special 301 idea that the US really *should* encourage other countries to adopt many parts of our system; but it also means that, unlike in ACTA, the US needs to be exporting *all parts of that system*. In other words, the US Trade Representative should not be concerned only with mandating DRM anticircumvention, but with encouraging more robust fair use laws. Done in this way, there might be more agreement between the two sides than is sometimes visible in their writings. But the [general industry attempt to export restrictions and enforcement, not exceptions and robust fair use][6], has produced something one-sided and rather monstrous when it comes to international IP policy. [6]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/obama-admin-mandated-exemptions-can-strengthen-copyright.ars No wonder, then, that when the US wanted even stronger enforcement mechanisms and a new set of international norms with which to bludgeon the world, it ignored WIPO and the WTO and formed an entirely new organization. As recent events at WIPO (see: copyright exceptions for the blind) have shown, the rest of the world is no longer content to talk only about enforcement—they want to talk exceptions, too. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100427/17c7b39c/attachment-0001.bin From mitoo at sarai.net Wed Apr 28 12:50:24 2010 From: mitoo at sarai.net (Mitoo Das) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:50:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] 2 day ICT Workshop for Non-Profits on May 18 - 19 Message-ID: <4BD7E1B8.6000704@sarai.net> *ICT Workshop for Non-Profits and Civil Society Groups using Free and Open Source(FOSS) Software* * May 18 - 19, 2010 * What is Free Software and why is it relevant to you? Free Software gives users the freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute the software without worrying about licensing and copyrights.This means there is no per-seat licensing unlike proprietary software and you are free to install it on as many systems as you like. The workshop will cover the following topics: *General sessions: * * Introduction to FOSS * How to install a Linux based operating system * How to navigate the Linux desktop, using applications and installing software. * How to get help and support * How to compute and communicate in a language of your choice. *More specific sessions: * * General office and internet applications * Ubuntu Linux installation (hands-on) * Creating blogs and Wikis * Audio/Video editing tools (hands-on) * Desktop publishing tools (hands-on) * Google Apps * New-age licensing concepts (Creative Commons etc) * Migration to FOSS with minimal hassles * Compatibility of FOSS software with proprietary ones *Venue Details:* *Sarai, CSDS New Delhi* *Complete directions at: http://www.sarai.net/about-us/contact* This workshop is being jointly conducted by *Sarai CSDS* (http://www.sarai.net) and *Mahiti Bangalore* (http://www.mahiti.org / http://convene.mahiti.org) To apply go here > http://bit.ly/bfWv8S Free lunch and snacks will be provided at venue. There is no workshop fee . *For any questions please call Nandeep on 098185 88334 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20100428/46cd156e/attachment.html