Articles on GIs and creativity

Some interesting articles in the papers this last week.

Latha Jishnu’s written a characteristically insightful and analytical piece about GI registration in India. Excerpts:

In recent months there has been practically a stampede for GI registration in India. Unlike the developed countries which use it primarily for food products (Champagne, of course, and things like Parma Ham), India has extended GI protection to products across the spectrum, from handicrafts to flowers and spices. Thus the Aranmula mirror, along with assorted silks, saris, textiles and embroidery styles, joins soaps, incense, different varieties of jasmines, several strains of rice, tea, betel leaf, pepper and chillies to get the GI tag.

The GI Registry at Chennai, where right-holders can register their products, is getting inundated. The question, however, is how much of a protection a GI offers. For one, other WTO members are not obliged to ensure the same kind of protection to all Indian GIs because there is a problem of hierarchy. Although TRIPS has a single definition for all GIs, it has authorised a two-level system of protection: one, a general protection under Article 22, and the other, a higher level under Article 23 that is applicable only to wines and spirits.

According to some experts, Article 22 is not good enough. It is simply a law against unfair trade practices and for consumer protection and is not really for IPR protection. A producer not belonging to a specific geographical region could still use the GI as long as the product’s true origin is indicated on the label. In other words, an Aranmula mirror could be turned out from, say, Houston in Texas, thus allowing an American producer to free ride on the reputation and market goodwill created by Keralite artisans over two centuries. Tellicherry pepper and Udupi jasmine thus far are not in the same class as wine from Champagne.

Lawrence Liang’s article in the Indian Express covers the recent Rakesh Roshan V Ram Sampath row in the Bombay High Court and makes some poignant comments on creativity, copying and copyright.

The language of the case and the reportage around it rely very heavily on the language of theft, property and damages for infringement of copyright and plagiarism in music. This rather hasty leap of faith to stricter enforcement of music copyright does not seem to find too much support in the history of music itself. While there was surely a violation of propriety in the Ram Sampath case, the important question that emerges is the impact of thinking of creativity only in terms of property. The history of copying, appropriation and plagiarism is in fact central to the history of various forms of cultural production, including music. We should therefore be a little cautious when we celebrate this case for the quick remedy it provided to an act of copying.

The act of copying has been central to the ways in which culture has flowed through various parts of the world, transcending the limitations set by space and time. Thus a Polish folk song, “Szla dzieweczka do gajeczka”, becomes a part of Indian popular consciousness through its adaptation as Salil Chaudhury’s “Dil Tadap Tadap Ke” from Madhumati. Secondly, the creation of music has always relied on adaptations, influences and inspirations, whether conscious or unconscious. It would be unfortunate if as a result of aggressive copyright suits, we reach a situation like the United States where even subconscious copying is held to be infringement. In a case brought by a band, The Chiffons, against former Beatle George Harrison, the court held that Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” was in infringement of The Chiffons’ “He’s so fine”, even though the judge believed that Harrison did not intentionally copy the song and had only been inspired by it subconsciously.

In our enthusiasm to protect the creator and ensure that he gets his just rewards, let’s not forget that the sense of touch is not limited to the hand, but extends to our eyes and ears. It is only natural that when we create something, it will be influenced by things we have read, heard or seen, even if they are not our property. Walter Benjamin describes this form of mimicry as a form of learning as a “sensuous similarity”, a right to copy, which should be as jealously guarded as copyright.

Dot Vs.Blackberry – Round 3 and 4

The Hindu Business Line reports today that “the Department of Telecom has asked telecom operators not to provide certain features offered by Research In Motion’s (RIM) BlackBerry until monitoring systems are put in place.” It is not known what “certain” features are exactly, but “industry sources indicated that e-mails sent from one Blackberry to another Blackberry may be barred.”

Gee.. Emails huh? That’s all? Waittaminute.. isn’t that all one does with a Blackberry!?

Currently, talks are on directly between Research In Motion – owners of the Blackberry technology and the DoT after ‘GSM operators opted out of Blackberry talks‘

At a meeting held last week, RIM requested that it be allowed to discuss its plans to address the security concerns directly with Government authorities instead of going through the mobile operators. Sources said that RIM officials were concerned that since the topic of discussion was sensitive for security purposes, the proceedings of the meeting may be leaked out to the media in case the operators were also involved. While representatives of the various mobile operators were present during the meeting last week, RIM executives and DoT officers met separately in another room.
..

Sources within the GSM camp said that with only 2 lakh Blackberry users, there is no crisis even if the service was banned. They also pointed out that there were many other handset devices available today which provides similar type of services though the security levels may not match up to that of a Blackberry.

So.. what’s the big fuss about again?

New Bangla Patent Act?

Business Standard today carries this slightly unclear piece about a new Bangladeshi law that will increase “chances of technical partnerships in Bangladesh”. Apparently, Bangladesh has “changed its patent law in an attempt to become a hub for manufacturing cheap copies of patent-protected medicines. ” However, another statement in the same article casts some shadow on this assertion:

Nazmul Ahsan, general secretary, Bangladesh Association of Pharmaceutical Industry (BAPI):

“Our government is actively considering various provisions to incorporate the flexibilities of TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property rights) within the patent law. It will be in the form of annexes that make production of medicines having patent protection elsewhere legally possible. We will be able to supply it to other developing nations also,” he said.

The article contains the usual info about the TRIPs, parallel imports and developing countries as well as some useful info on how the Indian pharmaceutical industry operates:

India, under its new patent regime, cannot supply raw materials or bulk drugs of patented medicines. However, it can supply intermediates (which are one step down in the manufacturing cycle of bulk drugs) anywhere in the world.

If Indian companies can strengthen the technological capabilities of their Bangladesh partners, these intermediates can be further developed into bulk drugs and finished medicines in that country. While these medicines have an assured market in all poor countries, they can also reach nations like India on the basis of compulsory licences.

“Indian bulk drug companies are going to fetch good business as penultimate raw material suppliers to bulk drug firms in Bangladesh. It will be definitely attractive for all new products that cannot be made in India,” he said.

So.. we can’t directly infringe patents and manufacture drugs. So we will manufacture them cheaply till their last step. Export them over the border to Bangladesh where they are assembled. Then use compulsory licensing to re-import drugs back to India. A pirate alliance like no other! Everyone’s happy.

Bangladesh shouldn’t be happy with this arrangement. A couple of months ago, Padma Gehl-Sampath made a presentation at the Alternative Law Forum on the technical capacity of the Bangladesh pharmaceutical industry. According to her, although the industry has a fairly robust manufacturing base, it has a very thin research base due to inadequate investment in pharmaceutical education. So Bangladesh imports machinery to manufacture drugs, but does not itself possess enough skilled manpower to reverse engineer drugs. India’s pharmaceutical industry ‘miracle’ since the 70s has owed itself to the fact that we had a largish base of skilled pharmacologists who could re-engineer very quickly.

So, short term, as an Indian, this makes me very proud. Long term, I’d like to see more pirate drug producing nations.

Pirate networks

A piece in the Hindu today about the ‘piracy menace’ presents an interesting glimpse into the informality of the networks within which ‘pirates’ operate.

“Sir, it is three-in-one,” said Rasheed, displaying about 100 DVDs in a compartment of the Mumbai–Kanyakumari Express. The the ‘three-in-one’ comprised Mammootty’s Roudram, Mohanlal’s College Kumaran and Suresh Gopi’s Sound of the Boot.

Contrary to claims made by the film industry, pirated VCDs and DVDs sell like hot cakes in the market. The piracy lobby is exploring all possible routes to boost sales. Like Rasheed, hundreds of youngsters are employed to market these DVDs in trains, bus stations and temporary outlets.

I cannot imagine Sony selling original DVDs on trains. A second class train ticket from Hyderabad to Bangalore costs just over Rs.250. By contrast, an original CD/DVD of a mainstram Hollywood film can cost between Rs. 400-600. No market analysis would ever recommend second class passengers as a target consumer group to focus on. And yet in audacious opposition to market analysis, the ‘pirates’ are making good business here.