Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
Oho!! Again copyright issue about even discussion of copyright amendment (Smile!) Anyway, I don't think discussion in this public forum is out-of-bounds as something is under consideration of government. After all, in a democracy, government requires free input even if it asks for it or not. And, expression of opinions even if reaches the eyes and brains of government officials, is not going to prejudice and favorable outcome. Anyway, ultimately moderatorial discretion would prevail and I would not write on this issue, unless permitted. Regards "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God-- but to create Him." --Arthur C. Clarke (Rajesh Asudani) Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India Nagpur 09420397185 O: 0712 2806676 Res: 0712 2591349 -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Kotian, H P Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:15 PM To: To: Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue Dear Rahul Is the material you have reproduced in public domain? I suppose not, as it is still in the consideration of the government. In that case, I suppose it may not be right to discuss in a public space like ours. Harish Kotian. From: rahul cherian To: raghuraman , accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue ear Raghu, After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the copyright amendment: *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.* * Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under subsection (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued. Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only to ?specially designed? formats such as Braille and would really benefit only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they?re not included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India?s disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a meaningful copyright exception th
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
Hi Harish, Kindly check India's leading copyright law discussion forum spicyipindia.blogspot.com. the specific link is http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/02/andhakanoon-obtuse-copyright-exception.html The proposed wording is obtained from there and is therefore in the public domain. Best regards, Rahul On 12 March 2010 14:15, Kotian, H P wrote: > Dear Rahul > > Is the material you have reproduced in public domain? I suppose not, as it > is still in the consideration of the government. In that case, I suppose it > may not be right to discuss in a public space like ours. > > Harish Kotian. > > From: rahul cherian > To: raghuraman , >accessindia@accessindia.org.in > Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue > ear Raghu, > > After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. > Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the > copyright amendment: > > > > *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication > to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially > designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other > disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal > format.* * > > Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the > income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit > of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons > with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full > participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, > in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any > work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case > to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the > Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* > > *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under > subsection > (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the > credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has > been made in good faith. > > (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of > rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding > such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be > issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the > Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish > the work. > > (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the > means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory > license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of > copies that may be issued. > > Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may > on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner > of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the > issue of more copies as it may deem fit. > > (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be > published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the > remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following > reasons: > > > > i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only > to ?specially designed? formats such as Braille and would really benefit > only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral > palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would > require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As > these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they?re not > included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India?s > disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information > that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. > This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the > Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with > disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom > the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a > meaningful copyright exception that would enable access to many educational > materials by the disabled, the State has failed in its duty to guarantee a > meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of > India. > > > > ii. *Provision to extend only to organizations primarily > working in the field of disability: *Even upon payment, co
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
Dear Rahul Is the material you have reproduced in public domain? I suppose not, as it is still in the consideration of the government. In that case, I suppose it may not be right to discuss in a public space like ours. Harish Kotian. From: rahul cherian To: raghuraman , accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue ear Raghu, After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the copyright amendment: *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.* * Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under subsection (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued. Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only to ?specially designed? formats such as Braille and would really benefit only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they?re not included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India?s disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a meaningful copyright exception that would enable access to many educational materials by the disabled, the State has failed in its duty to guarantee a meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. *Provision to extend only to organizations primarily working in the field of disability: *Even upon payment, compulsory licensing of the copyrighted work is permitted only to those organizations working primarily for the benefit of the disabled. Not only does this exclude educational institutions such as Delhi University, Xavier?s College Mumbai, Loyola College, Chennai and many other universities which have resource centres and courses especially to cater to the needs of disabled students from carrying on their activities, but it shuts out the avenue for disabled persons to turn to other sources of getting accessible information, such as self help groups, voluntary services run by corporates which undertake such activities as part of their CSR initiative, as well as all other local groups who are not primarily disabled-oriented
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
Hi Rajesh, You are right. Section 32 comes into play in instances where Section 52 does not apply. Rahul On 12 March 2010 11:16, Asudani, Rajesh wrote: > No, George, I don't think so. > Section 52)1 ZA), I think lays an exemption from copyright, and section 32 > about compulsory license comes into play when that exemption is not > applicable to a book, meaning that reproduction is in a form other than > contemplated in section 52. > Anyway, I require a detailed brief to comment any further. > > > Regards > > "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God-- but to create > Him." > >--Arthur C. Clarke > > (Rajesh Asudani) > > Assistant General Manager, > Reserve Bank of India > Nagpur > 09420397185 > O: 0712 2806676 > Res: 0712 2591349 > > > > > -Original Message- > From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto: > accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of George Abraham > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:18 AM > To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in > Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue > > plus, every time you need a book it seems that we have to apply for a > license. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rahul cherian" > To: "raghuraman" ; > > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:58 AM > Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue > > > Dear Raghu, > > After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. > Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the > copyright amendment: > > > > *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication > to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially > designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or > other > disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal > format.* * > > Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the > income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit > of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons > with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full > participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, > in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any > work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case > to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and > the > Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* > > *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under > subsection > (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the > credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has > been made in good faith. > > (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of > rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after > holding > such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to > be > issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the > Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish > the work. > > (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the > means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory > license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of > copies that may be issued. > > Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may > on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner > of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the > issue of more copies as it may deem fit. > > (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be > published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for > the > remaining copies.* > The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: > > > > i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only > to "specially designed" formats such as Braille and would really benefit > only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral > palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would > require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As > these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they're not > included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India's > disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information > that is f
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
No, George, I don't think so. Section 52)1 ZA), I think lays an exemption from copyright, and section 32 about compulsory license comes into play when that exemption is not applicable to a book, meaning that reproduction is in a form other than contemplated in section 52. Anyway, I require a detailed brief to comment any further. Regards "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God-- but to create Him." --Arthur C. Clarke (Rajesh Asudani) Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India Nagpur 09420397185 O: 0712 2806676 Res: 0712 2591349 -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of George Abraham Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:18 AM To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue plus, every time you need a book it seems that we have to apply for a license. - Original Message - From: "rahul cherian" To: "raghuraman" ; Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue Dear Raghu, After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the copyright amendment: *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.* * Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under subsection (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued. Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only to "specially designed" formats such as Braille and would really benefit only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they're not included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India's disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a meaningful copyright exception that would enable access to many educational materials by the disabled, the State has failed in its duty to guarantee a meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. *Provision to extend only to organizations primarily working in the field of disa
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
plus, every time you need a book it seems that we have to apply for a license. - Original Message - From: "rahul cherian" To: "raghuraman" ; Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue Dear Raghu, After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the copyright amendment: *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.* * Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under subsection (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued. Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only to “specially designed” formats such as Braille and would really benefit only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they’re not included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India’s disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a meaningful copyright exception that would enable access to many educational materials by the disabled, the State has failed in its duty to guarantee a meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. *Provision to extend only to organizations primarily working in the field of disability: *Even upon payment, compulsory licensing of the copyrighted work is permitted only to those organizations working primarily for the benefit of the disabled. Not only does this exclude educational institutions such as Delhi University, Xavier’s College Mumbai, Loyola College, Chennai and many other universities which have resource centres and courses especially to cater to the needs of disabled students from carrying on their activities, but it shuts out the avenue for disabled persons to turn to other sources of getting accessible information, such as self help groups, voluntary services run by corporates which undertake such activities as part of their CSR initiative, as well as all other local groups who are not primarily disabled-oriented from obtaining a license to the work. It also denies disabled individuals to directly convert works and access them. iii.*Delay and
Re: [AI] regardin copywrite issue
Dear Raghu, After much campaigning by rights groups and a meeting that we had with Mr. Kapil Sibal, the HRD Ministry has proposed the following wording for the copyright amendment: *Section 52 (1) (za)**: The reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.* * Section 31B (1):** An organization, registered under section 12A of the income tax act, 1961 (act 43 of 1961) and working primarily for the benefit of persons with disability, and recognized under chapter X of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995 (act 1 of 1996) may apply to the Copyright Board, in such form as may be prescribed, for a compulsory license to publish any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of such persons, in a case to which clause (za) of subsection (1) of section 52 does not apply, and the Copyright Board shall dispose of such application within three months.* *(2) The Copyright Board may, upon receiving an application under subsection (1) inquire, or direct such inquiry as it necessary, to establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. (3) If the Copyright Board is satisfied, after giving to the owners of rights in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that a compulsory license needs to be issued to make the work available to the disabled, it may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant such a license to publish the work. (4) Every compulsory license issued under this section shall specify the means and format of publication, the period during which the compulsory license may be exercised and, in the case of issue of copies, the number of copies that may be issued. Provided that where the Board has issued such a compulsory license, it may on further application and after giving reasonable opportunity to the owner of the rights, extend the period of such compulsory license and allow the issue of more copies as it may deem fit. (5) The Copyright Board may specify the number of copies that may be published without payment of royalty and the fix the rate of royalty for the remaining copies.* The abovementioned amendment is flawed for the following reasons: i.*Use of special formats:* The exception extends only to “specially designed” formats such as Braille and would really benefit only a part of the disabled community. Those affected by dyslexia, cerebral palsy, low vision and other physical disabilities and the late blind would require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts. As these are not formats specially aimed at a disabled group they’re not included in the exception. In other words, more than half of India’s disabled would be forced to pay royalties to merely access the information that is freely available to those persons who can work with special formats. This violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates between those persons with disabilities who are able to work with special formats and those for whom the special formats make no sense. Even otherwise, by failing to institute a meaningful copyright exception that would enable access to many educational materials by the disabled, the State has failed in its duty to guarantee a meaningful right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. *Provision to extend only to organizations primarily working in the field of disability: *Even upon payment, compulsory licensing of the copyrighted work is permitted only to those organizations working primarily for the benefit of the disabled. Not only does this exclude educational institutions such as Delhi University, Xavier’s College Mumbai, Loyola College, Chennai and many other universities which have resource centres and courses especially to cater to the needs of disabled students from carrying on their activities, but it shuts out the avenue for disabled persons to turn to other sources of getting accessible information, such as self help groups, voluntary services run by corporates which undertake such activities as part of their CSR initiative, as well as all other local groups who are not primarily disabled-oriented from obtaining a license to the work. It also denies disabled individuals to directly convert works and access them. iii.*Delay and loss of crucial time for students:* It is quite unacceptable that students may have to lose out on academic years due to the expected waiting period for permissions, which would be followed by a waiting period for conversion after obtaining permission. At th
