Sad, Democracy giving way to industrial dictatorship? On 5/25/12, Vikas Kapoor <[email protected]> wrote: > The following article appeared in the Hindu editorial page on the > implications of the recent act pertaining to CopyRight. > > Imprisoning the consumer behind a digital firewall > Srividhya Ragavan > > > > By introducing Digital Rights Management, the amended Copyright Act could > compromise the legitimate rights of customers and stifle innovation > > The Lok Sabha passed the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 on Tuesday and the > media have highlighted some of its positive aspects, especially the > provision for artists to earn lifelong royalty from the commercial use of > their works. > > Sadly, a major amendment relating to the introduction of Digital Rights > Management (DRM) has gone unnoticed. It is unfortunate that such a huge > amendment which can impact the everyday lives of middle class Indians has > been introduced without adequate debate and mostly only with industry > inputs. > > The power of DRM > > DRM is like a software code used to manage the rights of copyright owners > when any copyrighted material like books or songs are transmitted digitally. > Unlike natural limitations built into the dissemination of hard copies, > digital dissemination of copyrighted materials is quicker and easier. Hence, > copyright holders use DRM technology as a self-help measure to prevent > unauthorised and bulk digital dissemination of copyrighted materials. > > These days, for instance, software comes equipped with inbuilt DRM > programmes that tie it to a limited number of users or devices. A user who > buys legal software cannot give a copy to a friend - the DRM ties the > software to a single device or user. Similarly, DRM technology in modern DVD > players - termed as Content Scramble System (CSS) - prevents users from > copying the content. Even if a user copies a DVD, the disc will not play in > a regular DVD player. > > The Kindle example > > The problem is such DRM measures can prevent fair-uses authorised under > copyright laws like copying software from one's own laptop to desktop, or > copying a DVD for private use. Therein lies the immense power that DRM can > create over technology corporations. For example, Amazon's Kindle is a > wireless electronic reading device where users can download books or other > materials to save one the trouble of carrying bulky books. But, on July 17, > 2009, users who bought George Orwell's Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four > found that Amazon had automatically deleted copies of books from their > Kindles overnight. DRM technology allowed Amazon to enter and delete files > in each individual's Kindle. Reportedly, the copyright owners decided not to > sell the content on Kindle. Well, if you had purchased a paper copy of the > book, can the company send its employees to take it back from your house > without explanation and prior authorisation while leaving the refund of the > purchase price on your kitchen table? > > Intellectual property misuse > > Similarly, unlike in the case of a paper book that can be lent to a friend, > an e-book will become accessible only to a user whose user name and password > match - thus affecting the resale rights of the user. Further, in the United > States, the use of DRM to protect materials that are in the public domain > has led to a new line of cases cited for intellectual property (IP) misuse > that has competition law impact. For instance, Lexmark Inc. equipped its > printer refill cartridges with a DRM code that instructed the printer to > only recognise Lexmark cartridges. It prevented customers from purchasing > cheaper generic refill cartridges. Importantly, Lexmark held no IP rights > over the printer cartridge and hence should be amenable to market > competition. Competitors who broke the DRM code were sued for circumvention > of technology - which is a violation in India under section 65B of the > present Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012. Notably, in the U.S., it took > years for the court to rule on Lexmark's misuse of IPR because its DRM did > not protect any intellectual property. In India, technology companies will > get the same level of powers - and unfortunately, unlike the U.S., there are > no NGOs like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to fight such misuse. > > In the U.S., DRM measures have also been criticised as having a propensity > to slow the pace of development - a move that the Joint Parliamentary > Committee did not take full cognisance of. > > For example, ReplayTV and TiVo were recording devices that allowed users to > record TV programmes while automatically deleting advertisements. (Imagine > the pleasure of recording a cricket match without the advertisements.) > Turner Broadcasting (with other studios) sued the manufacturers, asserting > copyright violation. The courts forced both device manufacturers to remove > the record-by-removing-advertisements feature on the grounds that it altered > the original programme. Consumers, of course, were the ultimate losers but > so was the new technology. > > The treaties > > For countries like India, it is important to create research opportunities > to promote competition and innovation in new technology. India is > technologically still advancing and DRM measures are simply overenthusiastic > efforts that can dangerously choke innovation. Indian economic conditions > would further impose a huge burden when and if misuse occurs. Indeed, the > World Trade Organisation (WTO)'s agreements do not mandate establishment of > anti-circumvention (DRM) measures. Digital copyrights and DRM measures are > addressed by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)'s Treaties, > namely, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996 and the WIPO Performances and > Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996. But, India is not a signatory to either and > hence the urgency to comply is perplexing and disappointing. > > India's amendments on DRM are clearly driven by industry. In fact, at a > recent conference, an official of the copyright office acknowledged that > they closely worked with the industry and seemed unaware of piling > criticisms about DRM technology abroad. > > The Parliamentary Standing Committee that made the recommendations for the > amendment has not exhaustively examined the nexus between DRM and IPR misuse > and its effect on the public domain. Nor is there any research in India - by > the committee or otherwise - on the effect of such measures on the economy > and innovation, especially given the Indian software industry's current > attempt to metamorphose into innovators. Last century's technological > revolution that spewed out savvy products for consumers depended on fair-use > of lawfully obtained copyrighted materials. DRM thrives when the fair-use > exception to copyright law is narrow. In India, unfortunately, these > measures leave a gigantic burden on the judiciary to prevent any attempt to > narrow fair-use of copyright laws. > > (The author is Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of > Law, and Fulbright Scholar attached to NLSIU, Bangalore.) > > > > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3449611.ece > > Vikas Kapoor, > MSN Id: [email protected], Yahoo&Skype Id: dl_vikas, > Mobile: (+91) 9891098137. > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > >
Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
