Techdirt. Stories filed under "india"

EU Commission Sued For Refusing To Reveal Trade Agreement Documents They Shared With Lobbyists

Glyn Moody — Mon, 20 May 2013 03:48:09 PDT

A recurrent theme here on Techdirt is the lack of transparency when international agreements and treaties are being drawn up. That's increasingly recognized not just as problematic, but simply unacceptable in an age when the Internet makes it easy to provide both access to draft documents and a way for the public to offer comments on them.

Despite this growing pressure, nothing much has happened on either side of the Atlantic as far as providing greater openness for major negotiations is concerned. Perhaps frustrated by this lack of movement, the transparency organization Corporate Europe Observatory decided to take legal action against the European Commission back in February over the secret trade talks between the EU and India.

As the detailed history of this case (pdf) explains, the European Commission was apparently quite happy to pass on copies of certain documents to industry associations, but when Corporate Europe Observatory asked for the same, they only received censored versions. The lawsuit accuses the European Commission of discriminating in favor of corporate lobby groups and of violating the EU's transparency rules. As the Corporate Europe Observatory asks:

how can documents that the Commission has already shared with the business community at large suddenly become confidential and a threat to the EU's international relations when a public interest group asks for their disclosure? This is the core question raised by the lawsuit.

And it points out: What is at stake in the lawsuit is whether the Commission can continue its habit of granting big business privileged access to its trade policy-making process by sharing information that is withheld from the public. This practice not only hampers well-informed and meaningful public participation in EU trade policy-making, it also leads to a trade policy that, while catering for big business needs, is harmful to people and the environment in the EU and the world.
The European court will be handing down its verdict on 7 June. If the judges side with transparency, it could have a major impact on how the imminent TAFTA/TTIP negotiations between the EU and US are conducted. If they don't, then the battle for the public's right to know what is being agreed in its name will doubtlessly continue.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Publishing Firm Can't Take A Little Criticism, Threatens Blogger With $1 Billion Lawsuit, Criminal Charges

Mike Masnick — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:32:00 PDT

Here's a fun one via Popehat. Apparently an Indian publishing firm by the name of OMICS can't take some criticism from a blogger. The blogger, Jeffrey Beall, who is based in the US, has a blog called Scholarly Open Access (he's also a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver) in which he reviews and critiques various open access programs. As we've discussed, open access is really important for the sharing of knowledge -- but not all open access programs are created equal. In fact, there are serious complaints about many of them. Beall had some choice words for some of OMICS practices, which he claimed involved spamming and bait-and-switch. For what it's worth, Beall is hardly the only one to question OMICS' tactics. The Chronicle of Higher Education discussed OMICS in an article about "predatory" open access journals. As The Chronicle explains:

In 2012, The Chronicle found that the group was listing 200 journals, but only about 60 percent had actually published anything.

OMICS' response to Beall is almost too incredible to be believed, but it threatened to sue Beall for $1 billion and seek criminal penalties as well. Yes, billion with a b -- so insert your Dr. Evil jokes here. Oh, if you're asking under what law?

In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The punishment can be as much as three years in prison.

As Ken White points out, the SPEECH Act clearly protects Beall from any ruling in India. We've been waiting for the first attempt to see that law used to protect someone from some insane foreign claim. If you don't recall, the SPEECH Act says that the US will not recognize foreign civil rulings over speech that would violate US law, such as the First Amendment.

Similarly, criminal charges would be meaningless, because any attempt at extradition to India would require dual criminality -- such that the acts would be criminal in both countries. That's clearly not true here (and it's debatable if they're actually criminal in either country).

Amazingly, when asked about this whole thing by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the lawyer representing OMICS, Ashok Ram Kumar, a lawyer with the firm IP Markets, appeared to double down on the threats and insist that he was "very serious" (TM), though various lawyers are a bit more skeptical of that.

"What he has written is something highly inappropriate," Mr. Kumar said. "He should not have done something like this. He has committed a criminal offense."

While Mr. Kumar said he and his client are "very serious" about the $1-billion amount, Jonathan Bloom, a lawyer with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, in New York, said it seemed more like a publicity stunt. "Sometimes people just want to puff their chests, indicate their reputation, and try to intimidate people that criticize them," Mr. Bloom said.

One thing that is clear, however, is that any company that would send out such a ridiculous threat over a blog criticism isn't a company worth trusting. Whether or not they spam and engage in bait and switch or other predatory practices, we do know with certainty that they send out insane legal threats. That's enough information necessary to decide that OMICS is not a company worth supporting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Government Quietly Brings In Its 'Central Monitoring System': Total Surveillance Of All Telecommunications

Glyn Moody — Thu, 9 May 2013 09:57:54 PDT

There's a worrying trend around the world for governments to extend online surveillance capabilities to encompass all citizens -- often justified with the usual excuse of combatting terrorism and/or child pornography. The latest to join this unhappy club is India, which has put in place what sounds like a massively intrusive system, as this article from The Times of India makes clear:

The government last month quietly began rolling out a project that gives it access to everything that happens over India's telecommunications network -- online activities, phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations. Called the Central Monitoring System, it will be the single window from where government arms such as the National Investigation Agency or the tax authorities will be able to monitor every byte of communication.

This project has been under development for two years, but in almost total secrecy: "In the absence of a strong privacy law that promotes transparency about surveillance and thus allows us to judge the utility of the surveillance, this kind of development is very worrisome," warned Pranesh Prakash, director of policy at the Centre for Internet and Society. "Further, this has been done with neither public nor parliamentary dialogue, making the government unaccountable to its citizens."
That combination of total surveillance and zero transparency is a dangerous one, providing the perfect tool for monitoring and controlling political and social dissent. If India wishes to maintain its claim to be "the world's largest democracy", its government would do well to introduce some safeguards against abuse of the new system, such as strong privacy laws, as well as engaging the Indian public in an open debate about what exactly such extraordinary surveillance powers might be used for.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

OxyContin And The Art Of 'Evergreening'

Glyn Moody — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:02:00 PDT

A few weeks back, we wrote about the Indian Supreme Court's rejection of Novartis's attempt to use "evergreening" to prolong its patent on Gleevec, sold as Glivec in India. That term refers to the trick of making small changes to a drug, usually one about to come off patent, in order to gain a new monopoly that extends its manufacturer's control over a medicine. But how does that work in practice?

A recent story in The New York Times answers that question for us. It concerns the painkiller OxyContin, produced by Purdue Pharma. The main ingredient was supposed to be released gradually, for extended pain relief, but some inventive types started crushing the pills in order to get a big, single hit -- often with fatal results. So in 2010, Purdue Pharma came up with a new physical formulation that was designed to make it harder to mis-use in that way, and obtained a patent on it. Fair enough, you might think: surely it's just trying to stop the abuse of its products and save lives? Well, maybe, but as The New York Times story now tell us:

In a major policy move, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] said Tuesday that it would not approve generic versions of the powerful narcotic OxyContin, the painkiller that symbolized a decade-long epidemic of prescription drug abuse.

That's because there was apparently a fear that the generic versions would be abused in the same way as the older formulation from Purdue. What's interesting here is the FDA's timing: The decision by the F.D.A. came on the day when the patent for the original version of OxyContin was set to expire. That would have allowed generic producers to introduce their own version of the formulation. F.D.A. officials said that several producers had applications to sell a generic form of OxyContin pending before the agency.
Of course, now there won't be any generic versions -- at least, not immediately -- and so the price of OxyContin probably won't drop precipitously, and Purdue will keep making a nice profit from it.

That is a perfect demonstration of how evergreening works. Getting a new patent on a tweaked version of a drug that effectively extends a company's monopoly control beyond the original patent term is not enough on its own; what's then needed is some reason why the much cheaper generic versions of the original drug without the tweak are kept from the market. In this case, it's because they don't offer a formulation that combats mis-use.

Of course, it's good news that tamper-resistant versions will now be the norm, since that is likely to save lives. But as the New York Times article writes:

While companies like Purdue Pharma insist the public's health is their main concern, others note that producers introduced tamper-resistant versions of their products just as the drugs were about to lose patent protection.

I suspect we may see more of these interesting coincidences as other profitable drug patents are about to expire, and their manufacturers start to come up with yet more ways to "evergreen" them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

EU Free Trade Agreements With India And Canada Grind To A Halt

Glyn Moody — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:29:00 PDT

Techdirt has been covering the free trade agreement being negotiated between India and the EU for a while now -- that is, as well as anyone can report on something that is being conducted behind closed doors. Despite or maybe even because of that secrecy, one issue in particular has raised concerns: that India's crucial role as supplier of low-cost generics to the world's poor might be under threat. Against that background, this report on the Live Mint site comes as something of a surprise:

European commissioner for health and consumer policy Antonio Borg on Friday said the proposed trade agreement with India won't impose data exclusivity, patent extensions or linkages, in a bid to deflect criticism over the purported stance of the European Union.

Patient groups and other organizations have protested against the planned free trade agreement (FTA) between India and the EU on the grounds that it will lead to stricter patent laws, delaying the entry of generic drugs into the market and raising prices.

Of course, given the secrecy, we still don't know what exactly the EU is now asking for, or what India is offering here. But what is significant is that the European Commissioner has tacitly acknowledged the impact of criticism from groups concerned about the supply of generics. That's an important signal for the future, since it will doubtless encourage more groups to speak up. As to why this major concession is being made at this stage, another story in Live Mint gives us a clue: India and European Union (EU) will hold a crucial meeting on the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) on Monday in Brussels to iron out the impediments in concluding of the bilateral pact.

The meeting which is also seen as a last ditch effort to resolve the differences before India gets into the election mode where the manoeuvring of decisions regarding the pact will become difficult.
Perhaps the EU has dropped its demands on strengthening drug patents in an attempt to conclude the deal quickly. But that second story was published on 14 April, and since then there has been no word of any breakthroughs in the talks, which suggests that there weren't any. As the Live Mint article notes, that means that India is starting to enter "election mode", when FTA negotiations will take a back seat as politicians concentrate their time and energy on local matters.

Meanwhile, signals are emerging that another major EU free trade deal, the one with Canada, is also going nowhere:

Talks to wrap up a multi-billion-dollar free trade deal between Canada and Europe have stalled, diplomats said, raising concerns the agreement could be put on hold as Brussels switches its attention to a much bigger pact with the United States.

As that notes, the problem here is the imminent TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, which are starting to occupy people's attention in Europe. Clearly, there are just too many free trade agreements trying to do too much. Which one will be the next to fail?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Cambodian Activists Explain Why The EU-India FTA Is A Matter Of Life And Death

Glyn Moody — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:15:08 PDT

One of the many problems with the secretive nature of trade agreements is that it insulates negotiators from the real-world consequences of their actions. That's particularly true for the FTA talks between the EU and India, currently taking place behind closed doors. One of the key issues for the EU side is India's role as a supplier of generic medicines to the world, and India's tough stance on issues like the evergreening of pharma patents. From the various leaks that we have, it seems that the EU is demanding that India toe the line on drug patents, and cut back its supply of low-cost generics to emerging countries.

That might seem a reasonable request, since there is no doubt that India's production of generics reduces the profits of the pharma companies in Europe, which could charge far higher prices were there no competition from generics. But what that overlooks -- and what secret negotiations allow those involved to overlook -- is the impact such a move would have on millions of people around the world.

A letter from a group of Cambodian activists that struggle to supply much-needed medicines to those too poor to buy them, published on the infojustice.org site, provides us with a rare insight into what the EU's demands would mean for the world's poor:

We are saddened that behind the rhetoric of democracy, human rights and freedom the EU is in fact prioritising corporate interests to the lives of millions of people. It is needless to say that those affordable generic drugs are absolutely vital for the lives of millions who otherwise cannot afford expensive treatment of life threatening diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and HIV-AIDS. Many suffering from such serious diseases would not be able to survive without these generic drugs produced in India.

…

Having seen the importance of made-in-India generic drugs for the lives of millions, we in no ways can express our frustration about the attempt of EU and European pharmaceutical giants to control the production of these cheap medicines. This must stop right now. It is a true example of putting profits before people's lives and take advantage of people's illness for corporate profits. Our lives should not be regarded as a business opportunity. We urge the EU to reconsider its pursuit of intellectual property rights for medicines and to realise that blindly protecting the interests of large European pharmaceutical corporations will lead to nothing but a subtle form of genocide of the poor, their families and children in developing countries across the world.

It's hard to believe the EU negotiators personally wish to kill thousands of the poor; but the secretive nature of the talks means that they can close their eyes to the fact that if they succeed in forcing India to cut back its production of generics, large numbers of people will certainly die as a direct result. That's another reason why these kind of talks must be held openly: not just so that we know what is happening and can give our input, but also so that those conducting the talks realize that what they are doing is not some abstract game, but a matter of life and death for millions around the world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Western Publishers Sue Delhi University Over Photocopied Textbooks; Students And Authors Fight Back

Glyn Moody — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:38:58 PDT

Back in October last year, we wrote about Costa Rican students taking to the streets to defend their right to photocopy otherwise unaffordable university textbooks. Of course, that's not just a problem in Costa Rica: in many parts of the world, high prices act as a significant barrier to education, and it will come as no surprise that photocopying is an accepted practice in many countries.

That's certainly true in India, where an important battle is playing out around this issue. Here's a summary from Al Jazeera's Web site:

Cambridge University Press (CUP), Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis launched a lawsuit last year against Delhi University (DU) and a reprographics shop near its campus for producing "course packs" -- bound collections of photocopied extracts from books and journals that are sold for much cheaper than textbooks. The publishers claim the practice infringes on copyright, and that they and their authors are losing money as a result.

The publishers are demanding over $110,000 in damages for this alleged infringement.

But Delhi University's Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) -- set up to help fight the lawsuit -- points out that according to the Indian Copyright Act 1957 (pdf), in addition to the usual fair dealing/fair use rights, copying for the purposes of teaching is explicitly allowed:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

…

(h) the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work-

(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or

(ii) as part of the questions to be answered in an examination; or

(iii) in answers to such questions;

Recently, 309 academics and authors -- 33 of whom were mentioned in the lawsuit -- have sent a letter to the publishers involved, asking that they withdraw their legal action. That's an indication of the widespread concern that a victory in the courts by the publishers would have hugely negative effects on education in India, as ASEAK explains: That photocopying of educational material takes place at such a large scale across the country and across disciplines is indicative of the gap within our education system that is filled by photocopying. Until alternative mechanisms of access to the same material is evolved, any curbing on photocopying will severely impact the student community, not only in Delhi School of Economics, or Delhi University, but in every educational institute across the country. We affirm and express solidarity with the students of Costa Rica who are fighting for their right to photocopy, directly linked with access to education, as it is in India. We express our solidarity with the open access movement and affirm the cause that Aaron Swartz fought for. We welcome the move in the USA that has led to the decision of free access to publicly funded research after one year of remaining within subscription journals, and will push for similar moves for opening access to publicly funded research within India, including academic works produced by teachers while being employed by State Universities.
The battle here is part of a larger effort by publishers to enforce Western-level pricing in markets that are simply unable to bear them. Interestingly, it's exactly the same battle that is currently taking place in India over access to medicines, which recently resulted in a significant victory for producers of low-cost drugs. It will be interesting to see whether the current case about access to knowledge goes the same way.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Supreme Court Rejects Trivial 'Evergreening' Of Pharma Patents

Glyn Moody — Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:13:00 PDT

Back in October last year, in the context of India showing itself increasingly sceptical about pharma patents that drive up drug prices beyond the reach of its citizens, we wrote about an important court battle over Novartis's drug Gleevec, sold as Glivec in India. The definitive judgement from India's Supreme Court was announced today, reported here by The Guardian:

The Indian supreme court has refused to allow one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies to patent a new version of a cancer drug, a decision campaigners hailed as a major step forward in enabling poor people to access medicines in the developing world.

Novartis lost a six-year legal battle after the court ruled that small changes and improvements to the drug Glivec did not amount to innovation deserving of a patent. The ruling opens the way for generic companies in India to manufacture and sell cheap copies of the drug in the developing world and has implications for HIV and other modern drugs too.

The key issue at stake is a practice known as "evergreening": making small changes to a drug, often about to come off patent, in order to gain a new patent that extends its manufacturer's control over it. It's a way of cheating on the implicit bargain of patents: that a government-backed monopoly is granted in exchange for the invention entering the public domain at the end of the patent's lifetime.

That's what makes today's decision so important. It's not just about allowing Indian generics manufacturers to offer Glivec for a fraction of the Novartis price; it's equally about establishing the principle that "evergreening" patents won't be as easy in India as it is elsewhere, where the practice is common. This will allow India's pharma companies to produce a wide range of drugs at low prices that can then be sold to emerging countries unable to afford Western prices.

Doubtless, many lives will be saved as a result, but that doesn't seem to be any comfort to the head of Novartis in India, who is quoted in a press release as saying:

"We strongly believe that original innovation should be recognized in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation especially for unmet medical needs," said Ranjit Shahani, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Novartis India Limited. "We brought this case because we strongly believe patents safeguard innovation and encourage medical progress, particularly for unmet medical needs. This ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options."

That's pretty much what you'd expect him to say, since we've heard it here on Techdirt so many times before: without patents that allow monopoly pricing and big profits, there will be no investment in new drugs, and everyone will suffer etc. etc. But this simply isn't true. Much of the fundamental research that leads to important new drugs is done in public laboratories, paid for by taxpayers around the world, not by pharma companies.

Here, for example, is the story of how Novartis came to gain its highly-lucrative monopoly on Gleevec/Glivec, as told by the key researcher who actually developed it: Brian Druker, chair of Leukemia Research and professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute. He explained how the crucial initial research was carried out in an opinion piece published on the Livemint site in 2007:

The basic research that led to the identification of enzyme inhibitors for CML [Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia -- the main condition that Glivec is designed to treat] dates back to 1960 with the identification of the Philadelphia chromosome in patients with CML by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Peter Nowell and David Hungerford. In 1973, Janet Rowley at the University of Chicago determined that the abnormal chromosome was due to a translocation of genetic material.

No pharmaceutical companies seem to have been involved in this early work, and they were also minor players in the crucial move out of the laboratory, into product development, as Druker explains: In 1993, I moved to Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland and had a single goal of finding a company that had the best inhibitor for Bcr-Abl [the cancer-causing protein] and to bring it into clinical trials. My work in Oregon on a therapy for CML was primarily funded by public sources, particularly the National Cancer Institute. My persistence with scientists at Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) helped to keep the development of imatinib on their agenda despite uncertainty from product managers.
So not only was the drug developed largely thanks to public funds, but the pharma company that ended up making all the profits from it wasn't even hugely enthusiastic about the project initially: it was only Druker's "persistence" that led to the drug being approved. And if you're wondering about his views on the current world of pharma, with its stratospheric prices and a habitual recourse to evergreening to extend patents way beyond their original life-span, here's what he wrote back in 2007: Pharmaceutical companies that have invested in the development of medicines should achieve a return on their investments. But this does not mean the abuse of these exclusive rights by excessive prices and seeking patents over minor changes to extend monopoly prices. This goes against the spirit of the patent system and is not justified given the vital investments made by the public sector over decades that make the discovery of these medicines possible.
The fact that many key drugs have only been possible thanks to those "vital investments made by the public sector" is nearly always overlooked by defenders of the pharma patent system. It's another reason why the Indian Supreme Court's decision is not only right, but just.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Parliamentary Committee Tells The Government To Protect Intermediary Liability

Mike Masnick — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:04:00 PDT

Intermediary liability may sound like a boring legal concept but it's both pretty straightforward and important. It's the basic concept of whether or not the maker of a tool or service should be held liable for what someone else does with their product. That is, do we blame Ford for bad drivers? Most people, if they think honestly about this, will recognize that increased secondary liability can create a massive chill on innovation, because as people misuse your product, you get blamed for it. That doesn't seem right, but it means some new technologies don't get developed just because some people might misuse them. But if we look at all of the incredible useful technologies out there that can also be misused at times (cars, phones, the internet, computers, VCRs, etc. etc. etc.) I think most people will admit that we're better off letting these things exist, and dealing with any misuse directly.

Unfortunately, those threatened by such misuses often ramp up the moral panics to crazy levels and it leads to politicians putting liability burdens on intermediaries, meaning that less innovation happens. The Indian government, not too long ago, pushed out some "IT Rules" that seemed to increase intermediary liability and, like clockwork, we saw Indian courts holding service providers liable for actions done by their users. That's pretty dangerous.

Thankfully, however, it looks like there are some reasonable people who are leading India towards a rethinking on this one. A Parliamentary Committee has been studying the matter and "lambasted the government" for these rules and recommended massive changes. The report points to numerous problems with the existing rules, including "ambiguous and over-reaching language" as well as general confusion (even within the government) as to whether or not the rules are mandatory, or merely advisory. Oh, and some of the rules inevitably violate users privacy, because if you're expecting intermediaries to be online cops, you have to expect that some will take advantage of that. Finally, they point out that a big part of the problem is the near total "lack of representation" by the public as this policy was formed.

It's nice to see some significant push-back on bad, short-sighted rules that create chilling effects on innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

India Says: 'There Is No Direct Correlation Between IP And Innovation'

Glyn Moody — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:18:48 PDT

Techdirt has been pointing out for years that more patents is not the same thing as more innovation, even though many around the world would have us believe otherwise. It seems the message is finally getting through: here's a remarkable statement from India on the subject of innovation and small- and medium-sized companies, made at a TRIPS Council meeting:

there is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries. The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focussed governmental interventions like compulsory licenses, cross licensing, government funding, and competition policy. It is unfortunate that some of the technologically developed countries would like to showcase the positive effect of IP on innovation, when historically these countries including the proponents of this Agenda Item have reached this stage of technological development by focussing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the intellectuals property rights of the foreigners or the right holders. After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a TRIPS plus regime.

The last part is a clear dig at the US, which began as a pirate nation, but is now trying to impose the highest level of protection for intellectual monopolies on countries that are still at an early stage of their development, through the many bilateral treaties it has signed with them, as well as things like ACTA and TPP. The statement from India goes on: Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through the stringent IP regime. It is therefore essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.
That is, far from acting as a spur to innovation in countries like India, intellectual monopolies prevent small- and medium-sized companies there from progressing to the point where they are able to compete in global markets with the Western enterprises that are pushing for stricter enforcement of patents and trademarks. This is why emerging countries would do well to think twice before signing up to restrictive FTAs and wide-ranging agreements like TPP that are specifically designed to keep them at a lower level of technological development.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Studio Uploads Pirated Version Of Its Film To Its Official Youtube Account

Tim Cushing — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:11:38 PST

I can't imagine what went wrong here. You'd think an official Youtube account for a movie studio wouldn't be lacking in non-infringing content to upload. Nonetheless, India's Saregama Movies somehow ended up with a pirated movie as an official upload. Not only that, but the pirated version had gathered nearly 166,000 views before being taken 'round back and privatized by the studio. Twitter user Last Avenger screencapped the miscue in all its glory.

A search for Kamal DDR will bring up hundreds of listing, all pointing to various torrent links. Kamal DDR apparently "supplied" this copy to Saregama, although exactly how that ended up on the official channel rather than the studio's own un-pirated version remains a mystery.

Returning to the scene of the self-inflicted crime (as it were), viewers are now greeted with the familiar skewed-emoticon-o'-public-embarrassment.

No explanation for this switch-up has been provided by Saregama, so we're left with speculation. Could it be that torrenting the file was easier than finding it on the server? Was this preserved on a Saregama hard drive as evidence and labelled unclearly? Was this a disgruntled employee's last act? Rogue administrator? Are the phone calls truly coming from inside the house, torrentially-speaking? It also appears that this issue may not be limited to this film. Roughly a third of the links on Saregama's Upload list dead end with a "page not found" message.

Maybe original and pirated copies mingled freely within Saregama's local storage, much as they do on the open market. India's struggle with truly rampant piracy (as compared to the non-rampant piracy that is fretted about constantly by lobbyists and ICE heads) has been well documented and yet the country still cranks out roughly 80 million films (estimated) every year.

At the end of the day, Saregama's house is (mostly) back in order. Only the quizzical private-video-face remains, along with a selection of full-length films from the Saregama catalog (many with English subtitles) and a few unanswered questions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Music Industry Exec Says The Unthinkable: 'Internet Piracy Is A Good Thing'

Tim Cushing — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:14:23 PST

If you've followed this site for any length of time, you've heard many opinions on file sharing from many different people. While there are many who have taken a pragmatic or even receptive approach to file sharing (and seen a bunch of "freeloaders" cough up a whole lot of cash), there are many more who only see the downside of copyright infringement.

What you rarely, if ever, see is a top level executive of a major player in the content industry state, on the record, that not only is piracy a good thing, but it may also be a necessary thing. Here's Mandar Thakur, COO of Times Music, India, commenting on the internet's upheaval of the recording industry.

I may get lynched for saying this – but I have always believed that internet piracy was actually, in some ways, a good thing to happen to the industry. If not for that, the music industry would never have pulled its act together and embraced innovation and realised changing consumer behaviour and digital distribution. The challenges the music content industry faces are too vast to lay down here but the most significant one is the fact that the very core of the industry and its business dynamics have been shaken deep due to the consumer’s changed consumption habits and habitat, and its value proposition changed forever. It’s almost akin to consumers not wanting to pay to consume Coke/Pepsi anymore. In that sense it is as good as creating a brand new entertainment industry, creating brand new value and brand new revenue models at the same time as preserving the existing value/revenue base.

Now, before someone writes off Time Music as the equivalent of a boutique label run by three guys out of their stepdad's garage, let's take a look at the facts. Time Music, India is a division of the Times Group, the "largest mass media company in India," with annual revenue exceeding $1.5 billion and the employer of 11,000 Indians.

Much of what Thakur stated has been documented here over the years. Piracy may be a problem, but it's also a sign of disruption and an indicator of underserved markets. The problem with the American recording industry is that it spent much more time worrying (and attacking) the first item on the list while ignoring the other two. From what he's stated, Thakur is apparently uninterested in wasting much more time and money trying to eliminate file sharing. This should allow Time Music Inc. to devote those resources towards making money, rather than plugging leaks.

That he would come out and state this plainly probably won't win him any friends in the IMI (Indian Music Industry), the Indian version of the RIAA. Late last year, IMI filed a petition in support of India's IT Rules, pushing to be granted the right to take down content within 36 hours, without having to serve notice to the content creator or uploader.

Thakur may also begin irritating those even higher up on the food chain. IMI is part of International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), best known around these parts for serving up an annual report on piracy that's riddled with factual errors and filled to the brim with pleas for various governments to save it from having to make forward progress.

Not only does Thakur view file sharing as a side effect of industry stasis, he also seems to have a good grip on what consumers actually want -- and how the rollout of better and speedier connections will continue this disruption (and its attendant opportunities).

Faster access at affordable prices has always created a massive boost for consumption. At one point it was content that was king, then the portable device became the centre of the digital universe and now it’s the war of the OSes. The underlying factor across all these spurring growth (or preventing growth) has always been access and in this particular case it’s the global LTE and LTE Advanced roll- outs that will accelerate growth, especially in large countries such as India, Indonesia and China. This [growth of access] will be nothing short of an internet revolution, due to the wide-scale consumption it will create as common people’s daily habits change.

This is also refreshing. Rather than viewing across-the-board increases in bandwidth as nothing but a more efficient conduit for infringement (see also: the MPAA's comments on Google's fiber rollout), he sees it for what it is: an new, rapidly expanding market.

It's great to see such clear thinking from someone inside the industry. IMI and IFPI may not be happy with a pirate-loving COO heading a major music outlet, but it appears he's in place to catch a new market on the upswing, an uncommon experience for those in his position.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bizarre: Indian Government Orders Censorship Of One Its Own Sites

Glyn Moody — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:54:22 PST

Techdirt has been tracking for some time the worrying moves in India that have involved censoring the Twitter accounts of journalists and political groups, or blocking sites. But this bizarre story from the Times of India goes beyond these in a number of ways:

Ordered by a Gwalior district court, the government on Thursday asked internet service providers (ISPs) to a block 78 URLs or web addresses, of which 73 were linked to articles and blogs about the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and its director, Arindam Chaudhuri.

As the Times of India report notes, the range of material blocked is disturbing, since it includes newspaper and magazine articles, as well as the following: Remarkably, the list of 73 URLs includes a public notice of July 2012 issued by the University Grants Commission saying that "IIPM is not a university within the meaning of section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956".
For the government to censor itself, is odd, to say the least. But what's really worrying is the fact that Section 69 of India's Information Technology Act seems to have been invoked here to stifle criticism: "A poor law has given IIPM the ammunition to use state machinery to go after its critics. This was entirely expected given the way the law is drafted. The next step in this ladder would be booking people for blasphemy," said Nitin Pai, founder of think tank Takshashila Institution, who has been tracking the developments around the IT Act.
It's not really clear how a private actor was able to get this blunt instrument applied to so many sites -- including news outlets and one run by the Indian government itself -- but it certainly creates a dangerous precedent. It also shows how a censorship law that supposedly allows blocking "in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order" can be put to rather different uses.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bollywood No Longer Worrying About Piracy As Studios Keep Setting New Records At The Box Office

Mike Masnick — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:08:21 PST

For years, India was held up as a country that just didn't respect copyright law at all. We'd heard the stories about how widespread piracy was for all kinds of content. However, as we'd seen elsewhere, the claims that piracy was somehow "killing" the industry didn't really hold up under scrutiny. In fact, the Indian movie market (Bollywood) continued to grow massively and to thrive, even as piracy was rampant. That certainly seemed to contradict the old claim that infringement kills the incentives for content creation. And now, according to the Economic Times, many Indian studios have more or less stopped even talking about "piracy" because the box office is booming. The secret? It shouldn't be a surprise, since it's exactly what people have been talking about for years: making the authorized versions of the content more widely available more quickly in a variety of formats, thereby cutting off one of the main reasons why people seek out infringing copies:

A few years ago, theatre releases were limited to tier-I and tier-II cities due to high costs of prints. It took between three months and a year for a film to be released elsewhere. Consequently, films reached television and home video only after six months of a theatrical release. Pirates gleefully filled that vacuum by bombarding consumers with cheap optical discs....

Not anymore. The brightest stars of the Rs 100-crore constellation are theatres and prints.... Digital prints, which cost one-fifth of analog prints, have facilitated the swift reach of movies across the country.

There's an infographic that shows most movie releases in 2011 were shown on about double the number of movies screens as similar movies just the year before. That's a massive increase in availability for theater showings. As for the home market, while it still competes with pirated copies, quality seems to be winning:

According to Dwyer, the better-off who earlier paid to have high-quality cinema systems at home are no longer interested in poor quality (pirated) copies. "The quality of DVDs and Blu-ray discs is excellent with extra features and at a reasonable price."

While the article still says that there's a lot of infringement going on, it's just fading into the background for the most part, especially given the record-setting revenue numbers.

For one, producers are happy with the current box-office fortunes. There is also no evidence to show big hits suffering from online piracy. On the contrary, data crawls suggest that the most downloaded films are nearly always the biggest hits, according to Lawrence Liang of Bangalore's Alternative Law Forum, one of the authors of the India chapter of the Media Piracy report.

And, thus, the studios have finally realized that paying more attention to improving the authorized market is probably more important than "stomping out piracy."

What has really changed is the focus on piracy. As the case of AACT shows, the struggles against pirates are few and far between to make even news, leave alone act as a deterrent. "The tendency has been to focus always on the numbers we are capturing rather than looking at leaked markets," says Uday Singh, managing director, MPDA.

Of course, the article is still full of dire warnings about how the studios need to stay vigilant or everything might fall apart, but that seems based on random hyperbole, rather than any actual evidence.

None of this should be even remotely surprising. For years we've been pointing out that if you make works available, make them convenient and reasonably priced, and stop treating your customers like criminals, people will pay. Sure, there will always be some piracy, but those people are unlikely to pay no matter what, for the most part, and you just need to stop worrying about them and focus on giving more fans more reasons to actually pay. It appears that India is an example of a place where that's actually happening.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bayer Fights India's Compulsory Licensing Of Cancer Drug By Claiming It Spent $2.5 Billion Developing It

Glyn Moody — Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:40:46 PST

Back in March last year, the Indian government announced that it was granting its first compulsory license, for the anti-cancer drug marketed as Nexavar, whose $70,000 per year price-tag put it out of reach of practically everyone in India. Nexavar's manufacturer, the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, naturally appealed against that decision, and the hearing before the India Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB) has now begun. Jamie Love has provided a useful report on the proceedings; here's his summary of what's at stake:

The outcome of this trial, which focuses on the cancer drug Nexavar, is a matter of first impression for the IPAB, and is expected to set precedents on a wide range of issues, including the permissible grounds for granting compulsory licenses, the relationship between the India patent law and the TRIPS Agreement, and the setting of terms and conditions for the compulsory license, including the royalty rates.

Clearly, then, this is a crucially important battle for both sides, and Bayer has started throwing around some huge R&D numbers in an attempt to convince the IPAB that it should be allowed to retain its monopoly in India to recoup those costs: Bayer presented a January 9, 2013 affidavit from Harold Dinter which made the claim that from 1999 to 2005 Bayer had spent "2 billion euros (approximately US$ 2.5 billion) in the identification and development of anti-cancer molecules leading to the successful approval of Nexavar in 2005." Dinter did not provide detailed support for the numbers, but said they were based upon Bayer's general R&D outlays for anti-cancer drugs, including but not limited to Nexavar, and that the estimate was supported by a new December 2012 study by Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jon Sussex and Adrian Towse, published by the Office of Health Economics (OHE). Despite its name, the OHE is not part of the government, but rather a largely industry funded private consulting firm. The study itself was paid for by AztraZeneca. Dinter and Bayer's lawyer also made extensive reference to the work of Joseph DiMasi, an academic who is also a drug company consultant.
In other words, it's the usual "don't worry about the details, just take our word for it" lack of transparency that characterizes the entire pharma industry. But this $2.5 billion is insanely high, even for an industry that regularly inflates the outlay on drug development by an order of magnitude. As well as the generic implausibility of such a high figure, Love cites a number of specific reasons why it's extremely unlikely. You can read the details in his post, but here's a key section: Bayer's partner in the development of Nexavar is Onyx Pharmaceuticals. Onyx published annual estimates of its R&D spending on Nexavar.

…

Bayer paid for all research from 1994 to 1999 ($26.1 million), and this included research on several compounds in addition to the one now marketed as sorafenib/Nexavar. From 2000 onward, Bayer and Onyx split the R&D costs 50:50, and Onyx's share of the R&D costs were $134.8 million. The outlays on the entire R&D program that lead to the 2005 approval of Nexavar for Kidney cancer were $26.1 + (134.8 x 2) = $295.7 million. Of the $295.7 million, only a fraction was spent on the development of Nexavar for kidney cancer, and some of that benefited from a 50 percent tax credit under the US Orphan Drug Act.

To the put the entire $295.7 million into perspective, ignoring the tax credits, that represents a little more than one quarter of the current global sales for sorafenib/Nexavar, a product that will maintain its monopoly in most markets through 2020.

$295.7 [million] is also just 11.8 percent of the $2.5 billion estimate that Bayer wants the IPAB to accept as its R&D costs.

No wonder that Bayer was unwilling to explain how it arrived at that extraordinary figure. But it's hard to see how the pharma company expects to win this case citing numbers that are basically an insult to the intelligence of India's experts.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Fastest Growing Emerging Economies Are Also Those With The Weakest IP Laws

Tim Cushing — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:41:00 PST

Every time the major players in the copyright industries kick off another push for more legislation, enforcement or protection, they make grandiose claims about how much IP-intensive industries contribute to the economy. "Millions of jobs generating billions in revenue, a small portion of it taxable!" they shout proudly in the direction of the nearest legislator or ICE agent. If IP protection was weakened in the slightest, the nation's entire economy would likely collapse.

IP is innovation, according to these industries. Weak IP laws lead to weak economies. This entertainment industry trope, filled with questionable numbers, is used to justify the endless push for draconian IP enforcement and stiff legal and civil penalties for infringement. But evidence to the contrary continues to mount, punching holes in the IP industries' favorite narrative.

Kevin Smith, Duke University's Scholarly Communications Officer, came across two recent articles which, when combined, seem to draw exactly the opposite conclusion: strong IP laws may very well be detrimental to economic growth. (via The Digital Reader)

Yesterday, Reuters news service ran an article about a rating of eleven countries based on their enforcement of intellectual property rights. The index was prepared at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by a group called The Global Intellectual Property Center, and it ranks the U.S. at the top of the list in terms of strong IP protection (23.73 points on a scale from 0 – 25). But what is interesting is who scored lowest (out of the eleven countries that were ranked). The four “worst” countries for providing the strong IP protection important to the Chamber of Commerce were the four countries known as BRIC — Brazil, India, Russia and China.

So what else do we know about these four nations? In fact, why were they originally grouped together under the acronym BRIC? The answer is that the term was coined because these four countries were the fastest growing emerging economies, showing growth rates between 5 and 9 percent in their gross domestic products (compared with US growth averaging 3.2 over the past 65 years). The source of these averages for the BRIC nations is this report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, dated February 2012, which contains this conclusion: “We expect the BRIC economies to continue to drive world economic growth in 2012.”

So the four countries driving economic growth are also the four countries with the weakest IP protection regimes, amongst those 11 rated by the Chamber of Commerce report. Doesn’t the conclusion seem simple, that weaker IP enforcement is part of the picture for economic growth?

Now, Smith points out that this connection is nothing more than correlation, but a few conclusions can be drawn. A lack of solid IP protection does not necessarily doom economies to subpar performance and increasing IP protection does not necessarily lead to a robust economic future. IP industries have relied on the credulity of legislators to pass off the "stronger IP enforcement results in more innovation, jobs, etc." argument, usually packaged with the "no copyright protection means no incentive to create" lie that conveniently ignores years and years of creation pre-copyright and thousands of new artists surfacing at a time when piracy is "rampant."

There's tons of evidence that contradicts the rationale driving the "need" for more IP enforcement. Smith goes on to list a few examples of artists thriving with little or no protection, including "Nollywood," Nigeria's film industry, which has exploded over the last 20 years despite truly rampant infringement, and K-pop star Psy, who's looking at $8 million earned without having to rely on the protections of copyright. So, as has been suggested here time and time again, the real "enemy" of innovation and creativity ISN'T piracy, it's the industries themselves.

[I]P protection is, at least a double edged sword. Piracy can reduce revenues, but it also helps to create distribution channels and grow markets. So creative industries seeking to grow in the digital economy need to do more than try, futilely, to eradicate piracy, they need to seek ways to shape their markets and their marketing to exploit the audiences that it can create.

"New business model," anyone? This has been pointed out again and again. Attempting to defeat something that it at least partially beneficial is, at the very least, short-sighted. On a larger scale, battling piracy with enforcement and legislation rather than by increasing options and providing better services is more than short-sighted -- it's dangerously self-destructive. There's very little evidence that enforcement efforts are making any real dent in file sharing -- certainly nothing that would justify the time, money and effort expended.

Smith concludes his post with these thoughts:

So, slippery as such conclusions can be, I feel comfortable with these two assertions. First, creative people and creative industries can thrive without strong IP protections. In fact, if you are continually looking to the government to increase IP enforcement on your behalf, your industry is probably already in bad trouble. Second, it is perfectly possible to over-enforce IP rights to the point where creativity and economic growth are stifled. There is good evidence that the US has passed that point, and the example of the BRIC nations should suggest to us that we need to reverse our course.

At this point, the legacy industries are too firmly entrenched to expect any sort of nimble maneuvering or backtracking on existing IP laws. A suggestion for just such a reversal, briefly posted by the Republican Study Committee, met a swift, ignoble death at the hands of Hollywood's lobbyists, who also pressured its author, Derek Khanna, out of a job. No matter how much evidence contrary to the copyright industries' talking points is presented, the response is always the same: more enforcement, legislation and protection. It will take a severely weakened entertainment industry to give any quarter, but as long as its aims remain self-destructive, that day seems inevitable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Historic Ruling Against First Modern Drug Patent In India

Glyn Moody — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:09:00 PST

As Techdirt has reported over the last year, the Indian government is becoming increasingly keen on using cheaper, generic versions of important drugs to treat diseases, rather than paying Western-level prices its people can ill afford. Intellectual Property Watch reports on another instance of the Indian authorities easing the way for low-cost versions by striking down a patent granted to Roche for the treatment of Hepatitis C. As the article explains, it's notable for at least two reasons:

the patent granted to Roche in 2006 was the first product patent on a medicine in India after the country switched to a product patent regime for medicines as mandated by the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It is also India's first successful post-grant opposition case.

Getting rid of the first modern drug patent in this way neatly symbolizes the country's aggressive new attitude to Western-held monopolies on medicines. It's interesting that in this case the opposition came not from the Indian government, but from Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust, a non-governmental organization, which hopes to source the drug from a manufacturer of generics cheaply enough to be able to give it away for free. This may well inspire post-grant opposition from other organizations seeking to provide cheaper drugs to the sick in India through the use of generic versions.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Village Bans Unmarried Women And Girls From Using Mobile Phones

Glyn Moody — Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:42:51 PST

It's fairly widely accepted that the key digital device in the future will be the mobile phone, not the desktop computer that has had such an impact on Western society for the last few decades. That's partly a question of cost -- if devices are to reach even the poorest in emerging economies, they must be very cheap. But there are also other factors, such as the mobile phone's small size and portability; its rugged design and ability to cope with intermittent power supplies; and the built-in Net connectivity that more or less comes as standard.

But not everyone is delighted at the prospect of this powerful technology becoming pervasive. Here, for instance, is a depressing tale from India:

A village council in the state of Bihar this week prohibited unmarried women and girls from using mobile phones, saying that they promote extramarital affairs and unsanctioned marriages and erode the moral fabric of society. Married women will be allowed to use them only indoors and in the presence of a relative.

Well, perhaps mobile phones have indeed contributed to affairs, but logic dictates that there was probably a man at the other end of the conversation, and it's quite likely he was using a mobile phone too: why not ban all unmarried men and boys from using them, and only allow married ones to make calls under supervision of their relatives? The answer, of course, is that this is not about "eroding the moral fabric of society", but about power, and in particular the erosion of traditional male power in the village: Many villagers, male and female, attended a village meeting Sunday about the ban, and most favored it, particularly older people, Mr. Alam said. He presided over the meeting. The panchayat [unelected council], which is made up entirely of men, also barred women from bathing outdoors, at water pumps or in ponds or canals.
Moreover: The village's top elected official, Shamina Khatoon, a woman, was not invited to the panchayat’s meeting on Sunday.
Which is pretty strange, since she is both the top official in the village and a woman, and so might be expected to offer a useful perspective on the proposal.

Other comments from the New York Times article indicate that Indian officials are investigating the matter, which at least offers some hope that the ban will be rescinded. Whatever happens, this incident confirms that one of the best ways of empowering women and weakening the grip of patriarchal power is to help them acquire them mobiles cheaply. Moore's Law and mobile companies eager to sell phones and contracts to anyone, whatever their gender, will make sure that happens whether the village elders like it or not.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Abuse Of India's Information Technology Act Results In India's First Arrested Twitter User

Tim Cushing — Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:31:55 PST

India's somewhat schizophrenic relationship with privacy and freedom of speech has been discussed here before. The Indian government, on one hand, seems to want to do the right thing and safeguard its citizens from censorship and surveillance... but only up to a point. Once the going gets rough (i.e., outbreaks of violence, demonstrations), the government begins ramping up its surveillance and cracking down on free speakers.

Given this background, it's a bit surprising to hear that India has only just recently chalked up its first Twitter-related arrest. After all, the UK and the US have been doing it for years already. The person on the receiving end of this unfortunate record-setting event made the mistake of criticizing a politician (of course).

On 20 October, he (Ravi Srinivasan) posted a tweet to his 16 followers saying that Karti Chidambaram, a politician belonging to India's ruling Congress party and son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram, had "amassed more wealth than Vadra".

He was alluding to Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, who was at the centre of a political row after allegations over his links with a top Indian property firm.

This message ("got reports that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra") went out to all of 16 followers and somehow found its way to Karti himself, who responded like anyone else would when mildly insulted: by contacting law enforcement...

Karti Chidambaram (@KartiPC) did not take the tweet in good humour and filed a police complaint on 29 October.

… which immediately responded with the sort of speed reserved for appeasing angry politicians.

They arrested Mr Srinivasan early next morning, charged him under Section 66A of India's Information Technology [IT] Act, and demanded 15 days of police custody.

Srinivasan's single allegation could have been addressed through India's libel laws, but since that route takes time and money, the offended politician instead used the police department to take care of the "problem" by using the "sweeping power" of Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000.

[Section 66A] can send you to jail for three years for sending an email or other electronic message that "causes annoyance or inconvenience".

On the face of it, this protects citizens against online harassment.

In reality, the law is more often used by the state as a weapon against dissent. In each such case, police action has been swift and harsh.

In April, the West Bengal government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee used Section 66A against a teacher who had emailed to friends a cartoon that was mildly critical of her.

Loosely worded laws, ostensibly designed to "protect" citizens, usually devolve into tools of censorship. For some strange reason, those with the most power are the ones who feel the most "threatened" by open criticism and dissent. It's little wonder that legislators are more than willing to push through open-ended "cyberlaws" that can be bent to fit any situation. The end result is this fact, which is perhaps least surprising of all:

And, interestingly, Section 66A has never been used against politicians.

To Srinivasan's credit, he refused to back down from his statement. In addition, his arrest and subsequent appearance on television led to him gaining another 2,300 followers, many of whom are wondering if his arrest was tied to his anti-corruption campaigning. Despite the public support of the arrested tweeter, the politician behind his arrest remains unrepentant, tweeting out this amazing statement in his own defense:

"Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets."

There's nothing "reasonable" about arresting someone rather than following the "constitutional/legal remedies" set up by India's libel law. This is simple thug tactics being deployed by someone operating without fear of reprisal. Section 66A needs to be cleaned up if freedom of speech and privacy are going to be protected, rather than just paid lip service at convenient intervals.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

India's Recording Industry Wants The Power To Take Down Content Without Notification

Tim Cushing — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:50:08 PDT

India's copyright laws are a bit of a mess right now. Late last year, at the request of a movie studio, ISPs were instructed by an Indian court to block several file sharing sites. A full blockade was set up, eliminating access to complete sites, rather than specifically targeting the offending files. Six months later, the Indian government ordered another round of ISP-level blocks, this time taking out access to another set of file lockers and, for some reason, Vimeo. Then, once you thought you had India's government pinned down as an overzealous anti-piracy enforcer for the movie industry, an ISP found itself being fined by a consumer group for going too far with its blockage.

Well, it would appear the dust has settled momentarily as new legislation is discussed, and India's government is, at the moment, still an overzealous anti-piracy enforcer. This time, however, it's the music industry that's looking to have the government expand its enforcement. The Indian Music Industry has filed a petition in support of India's IT Rules. This has been filed in response to Shojan Jacob's petition challenging the constitutionality of the proposed rules.

What the music industry is interested in is the powers granted by the IT Rules, which allow content to be taken down within 36 hours, without any notice to the content creator or uploader. There's no doubt many in the content industry would like such a rule to be implemented worldwide, but considering how many bogus DMCA takedowns there are, it would definitely be a bad thing for anyone not protected by the legislation.

The Indian Music Industry cites the following in support of its wish to unilaterally zap content off the net without having to be troubled with trifling details like court orders or if the content is actually infringing. It would rather streamline the process into a shoot-first-ask-questions-never free-for-all.

- The Internet is the fastest and most widespread medium for diffusion of sound recordings in digital form. This is done through ISPs.

- Many websites allow streaming, reproducing, adapting, distributing, communication, transmitting, disseminating or displaying and downloading songs, without taking any license from copyright owners. Owners of websites are unknown, and it's impossible to track. However, ISPs have details of the owners of the website, and it is practically impossible for copyright owners to take action against people located outside India.

- The IT Rules allow the designated officers to block the contents of the website.

While a majority of what's stated is factual, it's a rather big leap to go from "the internet makes it easy to copy" to "let us decide what's infringing and simply have it removed without notifying anyone." And the pointing at ISPs as somehow being contributors to infringement is a rhetorical tactic nearly as old at the internet itself. It's based on the faulty assumption that people wouldn't purchase internet access if they couldn't help themselves to infringing content, plainly ignoring the thousands of legitimate uses ISPs facilitate every day.

But what exists already in India, as skewed as it is towards copyright holders, simply isn't good enough. IMI wants more.

Did the Indian Music Industry need the IT Rules to get those 104 websites blocked? We think not. Can they still get content blocked without the IT Rules? Yes they can. What the IT Rules do is that allow the IMI to go into overdrive, and block access to websites through ISPs and domain registrars, without going to court. In their current form, the IT Rules assume that the complainant is always right, and put intermediaries (ISPs, websites etc) under pressure to act-or-be-taken-to-court; the IT Rules don't offer proper recourse to someone whose content is being blocked, which is something that the reworking of the IT Rules should allow.

That seems to be the case the world over. The endless pressure from these industries for more expansionist policies and fewer options for recourse is now the standard operating procedure. IMI will probably find a strong ally in the Indian government if the recent past is any indication. Most governments are looking for ways to control what their citizens say and do on the internet and the IT Rules, if left unchanged, give the Indian government the perfect backdoor towards more censorship.

The copyright protection clause in the IT Rules isn't the problem: the issue is with other provisions related to broad terms used to define intermediaries and some of the subjective and broad provisions under which content can be taken down (grossly harmful, disparaging, impacting friendly relations between nations and suchlike), apart from the fact that the rules don't provide for adequate transparency and recourse, which impinges on freedom of expression...

Between the copyright industries and a seemingly natural tendency for governments to impose as much control on the "wild west" internet as possible, India's IT Rules are bad news for anyone not on the inside of these entities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Indian Politician Plans To Install Surveillance Cameras In His Ministers' Homes And Offices

Glyn Moody — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:41:21 PDT

Recently, Tim noted that, for some strange reason, politicians don't like having the same level of surveillance applied to them as they wish to inflict on the public. Here's a nice case from the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India, found via Evgeny Morozov, where politicians aren't being given any choice:

UP [Uttar Pradesh] chief minister Akhilesh Yadav has decided to install CCTV cameras at the residences and camp offices of all the ministers in his cabinet.

As usual, the politicians are up in arms: But a minister told Mail Today on the condition of anonymity that many of his colleagues including Raja Ram Pandey, khadi and village industry minister, Paras Nath Yadav, animal husbandry minister, Awadhesh Prasad, social welfare minister and Durga Prasad Yadav, stamp and registration minister, have opposed it.
The reasoning behind the move is interesting: 'the CM [Chief Minister] found the idea exciting mostly because he could boast of this action during Lok Sabha election campaign to claim that his ministers were observing complete transparency in their activities,' a source close to the CM said.
It's clear from this that there are some ulterior political motives behind this extreme form of governmental transparency. But equally, assuming that Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister goes through with his plans, there's no denying that it would give politicians a unique insight into the reality of surveillance, and that can't be bad thing.

Indeed, what we need is a general rule that politicians anywhere who are contemplating increased snooping on their citizens must be put under 24x7 surveillance in their homes and offices before they are allowed to enact any such laws. If that were the case, I predict their enthusiasm for spying might well evaporate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

After India, Now Indonesia Introduces Patent Licenses For Generic Versions Of Drugs

Glyn Moody — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:17:48 PDT

As we noted a couple of weeks ago, when we wrote about India's moves to issue compulsory licences for the production of generic versions of expensive, patented drugs, the big fear for Western pharmaceutical companies was that other countries might follow suit. It looks like that's happening in Indonesia, where the country's president has signed a decree authorizing low-cost versions of key HIV drugs:

the measure would introduce widespread generic competition and generate major cost savings in the world’s fourth most populous country. The decree licenses patents for a slate of HIV medicines, and represents one of the most robust uses of pharmaceutical patent licensing power by a country since the World Trade Organization 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (WTO's TRIPS).

Again, the concern for the major drug manufacturers must be that this latest move will encourage even more countries to start granting patent licenses for drugs needed by their populations, but which are currently unaffordable thanks to Western-level pricing. Indeed, it's hard to see what can stop that happening now that India and Indonesia have shown the way by invoking the right of countries to issue compulsory patent licenses, as enshrined in TRIPS.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Emerging Countries Take Note: Big Pharma's Losing Patent Battles In India

Glyn Moody — Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:24:32 PDT

Techdirt has been following the important story of the kidney and liver cancer drug marketed under the name Nexavar since March, when India granted a compulsory license for the first time since re-instating patents on pharmaceuticals. Naturally, the patent holder, Bayer, fought back, and appealed against that decision. Now we learn from Intellectual Property Watch that Bayer has lost:

Last Friday (14 September), the Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which is responsible for hearing appeals on patent applications, rejected a petition by German pharma major Bayer AG, seeking a stay on an order of India’s Controller of Patents granting a compulsory licence (CL) to Indian generic drug maker Natco Pharma Limited, for a drug used to treat liver and kidney cancer.

It's quite possible that Bayer will try to appeal to a higher court, but what's noteworthy is that this is just one of several other important pharma cases in India at the moment. For example, the Delhi High Court held that Roche’s patent on the cancer drug Tarceva was valid, but that an Indian generics manufacturer had not infringed on it because it had only been selling a variant of the drug. Another high-profile case concerns the blood cancer drug Gleevec, sold as Glivec in India, whose manufacturer, Novartis, is fighting India's refusal to grant it a patent. Here's the background: The legal dispute in the Glivec case centres around a provision of India’s 2005 patent law, called Section 3(d), which states that "the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant." The dispute brings to the fore a fundamental question: what is an "invention"? Or more precisely, how much innovation is required to obtain a patent in India?
Novartis insists that it is not fighting in order to get more money, but to vindicate its "honor". What this probably means is that it is trying to establish the principle that patents can be given for new forms of drugs, even if they provide no enhancement over earlier versions. If it loses the Gleevec/Glivec case, that could have serious repercussions for future patent applications by the company in India.

More generally, this current round of high-profile drug patent cases may well have major knock-on effects in other regions of the world. Western pharma companies are probably worried that their recent failures in India to gain certain patents or block local manufacturers of generics could be repeated elsewhere as emerging countries wake up to the flexibilities within the TRIPS agreement that India is currently exploiting. The Intellectual Property Watch article mentions three nations that are already considering this -- Botswana, South Africa and Swaziland.

An article in the leading medical journal The Lancet agrees that India's growing success might well encourage others:

In trying to limit compulsory licences and avoid efficacy tests on products, the Bayer and Novartis cases are seeking to undermine public health considerations aimed at improving access and therapeutic advantage. The TRIPS Agreement does not limit the grounds on which compulsory licences can be granted, and does not prevent patent applicants from having to demonstrate enhanced efficacy for their allegedly new and useful inventions. There are many problems facing access to and rational use of medicines in India but the provisions within the country's patent laws, if more extensively and properly applied, should help rather than hinder such access. India's laws and experiences could provide a useful example for low-income and middle-income countries worldwide.

Watch this space.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

India And Kyrgyzstan Ramp Up Internet Monitoring And Censorship Efforts

Glyn Moody — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:57:00 PDT

Techdirt has written about earlier moves by India to block Web sites and censor Twitter accounts. The central concern seems to be that inflammatory online activity might stoke or provoke local outbreaks of violence of the kind seen recently in Assam. Now The Times of India is reporting that the Indian government wants to go further, and actively monitor who's saying what by setting up a new agency:

"The agency will have an effective monitoring system, comprising duly tasked and technologically empowered cyber monitoring and surveillance agencies, which can report build-up in time and forewarn government of any malicious use of the internet and social media," said an official. Such a central agency will, however, be set up only after putting in place a legal regime to take care of the issue of individuals' privacy and citizens' freedom of speech/expression.

Although it's good that legal safeguards will be put in place to safeguard privacy and freedom of expression, the devil is in the details: the fact that the Indian government has already shut down Web sites and Twitter accounts suggests that political fears are likely to override concerns about human rights if tensions begin to rise. The same story's quotation of a comment from a recent government meeting on the subject, with its references to "graded response and graded penalty to perpetrators", does not augur well: "This will introduce predictability with regard to what kind of content is liable to be regulated and for how long, the structure and process for such regulation, proactive dissemination of information to counter false propaganda as well as a system of graded response and graded penalty to perpetrators," the minutes of the meeting said.
Meanwhile, Rebecca MacKinnon points us to news on the Net Prophet blog that Kyrgyzstan also wants to ramp up its censorship: The only parliamentarian republic in Central Asia -- Kyrgyzstan -- has become the scene of a growing attack on Internet freedom. In the beginning of September, parliamentarians and security services proposed two new measures which, according to opinion leaders and experts, would increase censorship in an already restricted Internet landscape.
The reason -- of course -- is to "protect the children": Online media and television often contain information accompanied by scenes of violence, pornography, and the promotion of drugs. That can affect the outlook of a child and lead to disastrous consequences. Such rules have been in place for a long time in other countries and have been known to work efficiently.
In particular, the Kyrgyz proposal seems modelled on the Russian approach, as the Net Prophet story notes: the information portal Kloop cites human-rights activists emphasizing the similarities between the current law and the one passed a few weeks ago in Russia. The activists have found many similarities between the two laws.
This is the law that Techdirt reported on back in July. What this underlines is the way that bad laws have a habit of spreading, as successive countries bring in similar laws. That's not least because, rather than being able to take the moral high ground by offering clear examples of how to preserve freedom of speech on the Internet, Western countries are now widely perceived as hypocritical when it comes to censorship.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US: India, Stop Censoring Websites! India: Wikileaks, Hello? US: That's Different!

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:11:00 PDT

We've argued for a while that the US's effort to censor websites at home while talking about internet freedom is hypocritical and takes away any moral high ground the US might have had with other countries concerning their efforts to censor the internet. What's stunning, unfortunately, is how rarely US officials seem to recognize this problem. When confronted on it -- they always revert to a "but that's different!" claim, missing that this is exactly the excuse that other countries use to justify their own censorship efforts.

Case in point: there's been significant concern in India, as the government has been censoring Twitter accounts of certain journalists and political groups, as well as blocking certain websites (sometimes just blog posts, other times, full websites). As that last link explains, the content targeted for censorship tends to have to do with content around "communal issues and rioting," and thus there's an argument to be made that the censorship is for the benefit of the public, to prevent riots. Even so, of course, one can question whether or not such censorship is even effective, let alone the rather obvious temptation for those in power to overblock for their own benefit. Indeed, that last link explains that there have been "egregious mistakes" in how the blocks have been carried out.

And what about the US? With plenty of attention being paid to the debate over this Indian censorship, the US State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, was asked her thoughts about what was happening, and trotted out the standard line about internet freedom:

"On the larger question of Internet freedom, you know where we are on that issue, and we are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet," she said.

Which sounds great, of course, but if Nuland thought that such a blanket statement would let her off, she was mistaken. Reporters immediately hit back, pointing to examples of the US fighting against internet freedom in its own back yard. And Nuland apparently wasn't happy, and pulled out the "but that's different!" excuse:

But when she was probed on the issue of WikiLeaks, Nuland snapped: "WikiLeaks didn't have to do with freedom of the Internet. It had to do with the compromise of US government classified information."

To be fair the US government has not "blocked" Wikileaks. It has blocked it on certain government computers and has used public pressure to have its hosting and payment processors cut it off. Whether or not that's to the same level as to what's happening in other countries may be debatable, but it certainly opens up the US to criticism on that point. And that's the real issue here. Even if you argue "but that's different," just the fact that the US has opened itself up to such an easy retort any time it argues for internet freedom in countries that espouse censorship, it makes it that much harder for the US to seriously push an internet freedom agenda abroad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story