eNews
IPR: DIPP allocation increased after copyright shift from HRD
NEW DELHI: With the entire bogey relating to copyright having shifted to it, the budget for intellectual property in the allocation for the Department of Industrial Policy and Planning has jumped up to Rs 1,700 million from Rs 1,112 million in 2016-17.
After the announcement made in early April last year that copyright issues would be dealt with by DIPP, revised estimates for 2016-17 had shown a jump to 1550 million, necessitating a higher budget for this sector.
Consequently, the allocation for Human Resource Development which had until now been primarily responsible for this sector shows a blank and the budgetary document says this is because the sector has moved to DIPP.
Of the total allocation, the highest share has been allocated for modernization and strengthening of Intellectual Property office – Rs 757.8 million, followed by Rs 520.1 million for the Controller General of Patent Designs and Trademarks.
Several offices have been allocated budgets for the first time: Semi-conductor Integrated Circuit Layout Design Registry (Rs 10 million), Semi-Conductor Integrated Circuit Layout Design Board (Rs One million), Cell for Promotion of Intellectual Property and Management (CIPAM) with Rs 109.9 million, Copyright Office (Rs 36.5 million), Copyright Board (Rs 33.5 million, and Promotion of copyrights and IPR (Rs 60 million).
Of these, the last three had been given some allocation in the revised budget. Interestingly, there is no explanatory for these six departments in the budget document.
In addition to the IP budget, there is an allocation of Rs 6.5 million for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as part of support to autonomous organizations.
It had been announced early in the financial year 2016-17 that issues of copyright had been shifted to the DIPP of the Commerce and Industry Ministry, which became the nodal department to deal with all issues related to copyright in the country.
(Copyright had until then been the preserve of the Human Resource Development Ministry and the film, music and television industries had always grudged this as they felt it should be with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.)
Also Read:
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue
Copyright Force finally here to fight online piracy
eNews
KPMG fines partner for using AI in internal AI exam
Partner fined A$10,000 after uploading training material to AI tool
AUSTRALIA: According to an Australian Financial Review report, a partner at KPMG Australia has been fined A$10,000 ($7,000) for using artificial intelligence tools to cheat on an internal training exam focused on AI itself, underscoring the growing challenges professional services firms face as staff adopt the technology.
The unnamed partner was required to retake the assessment after uploading training material into an AI platform to generate answers. KPMG said more than two dozen employees had been caught misusing AI in internal exams during the current financial year.
KPMG Australia chief executive Andrew Yates, said the firm was struggling to keep pace with the rapid uptake of AI. “Given the everyday use of these tools, some people breach our policy. We take it seriously when they do,” he said, adding that the firm was reviewing safeguards under its self-reporting regime.
The incident adds to broader concerns across the accounting profession. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants last year scrapped remote examinations, citing the growing sophistication of cheating systems. All four Big Four firms have faced penalties linked to cheating scandals across multiple jurisdictions in recent years.
KPMG said it has adopted measures to detect AI misuse and will disclose the number of breaches in its annual results.
The case surfaced during a Senate inquiry into industry governance, where Greens senator Barbara Pocock criticised the lack of tougher consequences. Australia’s corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, said it would not intervene unless disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the profession’s trade bodies.
