[My notes are a bit shabby, because mostly if am not able to understand the crux of the issue which forms the background of these presentations, most of which are related to archiving, I am not able to do justice to the notes. This blog is largely quick notes for personal use, I am going to go through them later, I will be looking at the presentations once they are up on Ithaka site and would do my personal research and then perhaps I will be able to write short paras on each topic. As of now, feel free to go through them, but I honestly don’t think they are of much value because they are very sketchy]
‘Right to Knowledge for Persons with Disabilities: A Proposal to Amend the Indian Copyright Regime’ by Krithika Dutta Narayan from Centre of Internet Society
Access to books by the visually impaired?
Books being converted into accessible formats by the visually impaired themselves and shared. Copy right violations to be dealt with. Centre for Internet Society has been lobbying with the legislators to make amendments in copyright laws to make this possible. Here are some of the book sharing initiatives.
Inclusive Planet – http://www.inclusiveplanet.com/en/login
Book Share — http://www.bookshare.org/
Ethnomusicology archives in the age of digtization – an IPR trace by Shubha Chaudhuri
There are a lot of moral and ethical issues that come in our way when we work, besides IP issues. We are largely an archive of field recordings done by scholars and researcher. About 209 collections, 25,000 hours of audio visual recording. we have published material, classical music, oral traditional story telling and more. ARC does an agreement with every depositor with options of access.
In 1997 first amendment to Copyright Act in India. The definition of performance, it was made very inclusive and the performer was given right over his/her own perfrmance. Recording of the present speech I am giving also means recording my performance and I have right over it.
Performers and Communities – it is not necessary that the performance is original, it might belong to someone else, what do we do about the performer’s right then?
If people were more particular about acknowledgement and attribution we wouldn’t have to deal with a lot of moral issues while archiving them.
Protection of artistic integrity –
ARCE – An IPR Trace
Smithsonian Globalsound Project – they were bringing in the concept of paid downloads. We wanted to do it, but the issue came up that we had origially made these recordings for research but now we were going to sell. Also how do we share revenue? So we decided we would pay every performer an amount upfront for so may downloads. It had been helpful, we have great cooperation from collectors. The revenue model of Smithsonian is that they get 50%, the performer and collector each get 25%.
Another right model is Remembered Rhythems, we did a festival. It was a grant based, we could pay the performers and other people involved. In the end we had some money left. So we took permission from the performers and made CDs of the performance. We didn’t go on a royalty model. Instead we gave 15% of the CDs to the artist and they could do whatever they wanted to do with.
Archives Survey: India (the problems)
Apparently saying on record that we are recording for this purpose, is it ok to distribute it. We later found out this didn’t hold good in court and it is still not ‘permission’
Perils of pioneering — reflections on the first mover disadvantages and challenges of building Vidyanidhi Digital Library in India by Shalini Urs, Director