Victory for Students and Access to Knowledge in Delhi University Copyright Case

[Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge] In a rare and incredible order today, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the copyright infringement case filed by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis (Routledge) against Rameshwari Photocopy Shop in Delhi School of Economics and Delhi University. Justice R.S Endlaw in a 94 pages long judgment interpreted educational exception under section 52(1)(i) of the copyright act in broad enough manner to cover the acts of photocopying. The publishers sought to claim damages to the tune of 60 lakh rupees from the shop citing infringement of copyright which the publishers claimed was happening through photocopying of parts of books published by them. … We, at ASEAK, had maintained from the beginning that the exceptions within the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, keep reproduction of material for the purposes of education outside the purview of copyright controls. Click here for more.

See also: Full text of the Delhi Hight Court Judgement. Link.

Europeans Deserve a Better Copyright Reform

[Paul Keller] 14 September: Today’s proposal buries the hope for a more modern, technologically neutral and flexible copyright framework that the Commission had hinted at in its initial plans for the Digital Single Market. The proposal largely ignores crucial changes to copyright that would have benefitted consumers, users, educators, startups, and cultural heritage institutions. It also abandons the idea of a digital single market that allows all Europeans the same rights to access knowledge and culture. Finally, it completely ignores the importance of protecting and expanding the public domain. Click here for more.

See also:

  • EC Press Release. Commission proposes modern EU copyright rules for European culture to flourish and circulate. Link.
  • Julia Reda. Despite Denials, Copyright Reform Plans by European Commission Are an Attack on the Freedom to Link. Link.

Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines: Promoting Innovation and Access to Health Technologies

[United Nations] … Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in November 2015, announced the appointment of a High-Level Panel on Innovation and Access to Health Technologies. In keeping with the commitment of United Nations Member States to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development, the High-Level Panel’s terms of reference called for it to “review and assess proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public health in the context of health technologies,” among other things. In accordance with the principle of universality that underpins the 2030 Agenda and its aspiration to leave no one behind, the High-Level Panel views innovation and access to health technologies as a multi-dimensional and global problem that affects all countries. Click here for more.

See also:  Statements by the Treatment Action Campaign, Knowledge Ecology International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Health GAP, Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, Health Action International, United States Chamber of Commerce,  Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and the U.S. Department of State.

Big Pharma’s Court Cases in Brazil & Argentina Threaten to Dismantle the National Laws Considered as Important Public Health Safeguards in the UN High Level Panel Report

[Joint statement by Fundación Grupo Efecto Positivo and the ABIA Grupo de Trabalho sobre Propriedade Intelectual] The United Nation’s High Level Panel (UN HLP) on Access to Medicines released yesterday its final report. … Although the recommendations of the report could have been stronger, it clearly recommends the use of pro public health safeguards to promote the human right to health. The report describes some of the challenges faced by countries to make use of those safeguards, however it fails on addressing the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies. Court cases filed by Big Pharma in Brazil and Argentina are threatening the access to medicines, and acting against the recommendations of the UN HLP.  Click here for more.

Protecting Online Access to Safe and Affordable Medication

…[Gabriel Levitt] There is plenty of discussion about the safety of ordering medications online. While rogue and illegal online pharmacies are dangerous and need to be stopped, the online marketplace is complex and potentially misunderstood by thought leaders in Internet governance, which can lead to the acceptance of rules that hinder access to affordable medication. The Internet community has a unique opportunity to play a role in pushing back against unjust pharmaceutical-industry interests and Internet censorship: and even protecting human rights. Click here for more.

Cato Institute on the “Protectionist” Intellectual Property Provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership

[Mike Palmedo] The Cato Institute has released a report that “presents a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from a free trader’s perspective.” It notes that TPP is really more of a “managed” or “freer” trade agreement than an agreement that really promotes “free trade” in a classic sense. It finds that overall, the “terms of the TPP are net liberalizing,” but that some of the individual chapters – including the intellectual property chapter – are actually “protectionist.” Click here for more.

Assessing the Consequences of TRIPS+ FTAs for India: TPP, TISA and RCEP

[Balaji Subramanian] … In this two-part post, I have scrutinised the TPP, TISA and RCEP that deal with IP and the digital economy vis-a-vis the current Indian legal standard for compliance with their provisions. For most of the IP section, I have assumed that the current Indian standard is TRIPS-compliant (e.g. with respect to data exclusivity), and therefore used the TRIPS standard interchangeably with the current Indian position. Below, I have discussed those provisions in these agreements that generate new international obligations for India. These include obligations that Indian legislators have already foreseen and complied with (such as the legal backing for TPMs), as well as obligations that would require a modification of the prevailing Indian standard. For more, see Part I and Part II on Spicy IP.