Some of those moments...
Sometimes its not a big thing that leaves a mark, its little little things in our day to day life that makes an impression...
when a baby, looks at you and smiles
without realising,you hold hands when crossing the road
unexpected thank you note
smell of freshly washed dried clothes
unexpected and FAST downloading speed.
the time when you know that, things between you and her is more den friendship.
hot water bath after a tiring day.
hearing your fav song after hearing some crap songs
single red rose.
unexpected kiss on cheeks by my kids
hand written letter
warm wet sand in the beach.
last hug,when u know u wont see each other for a long time.
when someone keeps checking your temperature when ill.
looking at your baby photos.
fighting for hot chocolate cake.
giggling with your guys,checking out some hot girls.
going through old stuffs, and finding something you thought was lost.
when you see a sign board after a longtime.
when people call to wish you on your birthday, and you cant pick it up cause you are attending some stupid boring meeting.
soft pillow and warm blanket on a cold night
you are waiting,counting every min she is on phone with some other gu,comes back smiles and says "jealous?" and you say "why should I be jealous?"
proud look in your parents eyes.
These things make my day, my life
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
When it comes to table !!
The Copyright Amendment Act 2010 proposes to amend provisions relating
to version recordings or cover recordings, the interpretation of which
has been in dispute before courts for a considerable period of time.
The courts have, in my view, yet to decide the issue of whether or not
consent is required from the owner of rights for such recordings. In
Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Super Cassettes Industries
Limited (1998) the Delhi High Court had granted an injunction
restraining the sale of the version recordings when the owner of
copyright responded to the party proposing to make the sound recording
and expressly refused permission. The Karnataka High Court came up with
a different view in Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Mars
Recording Pvt. Ltd. (1999). This was appealed to to the Supreme Court
in Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. (2001) The Supreme Court, in the view of the author, did not
decide the issue of whether consent is required from the owner of the
works, but remanded the matter back to the trial court. However, the SC
did set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court, stating in its
order that the party who intended to make a recording, relied on the
ingredients of the Copyright Act without pleading the factual basis for
making this recording in the original plaint before the trial court.
While this order was passed close to a decade back, and while there
have been other litigations subsequent to this, the issue of the
requirement of consent of the owner of copyright has still not been
resolved.
One hoped that the present set of amendments would do this;
unfortunately this was not to be. The proposed amendment comes in the
form of a new Section31 C under the title “Statutory License for Cover
Versions”; it is pertinent to note that till date, the Copyright Act
has never used the term “cover version”. The critical statutory change
envisaged is that a version recording will now be treated under a
Statutory Licensing framework and not as a Defence to an Infringement
of Copyright, as is the case now.
There are a few changes to the elements of the Section, significant
among those include
(i)The version recording can only be made after five years calendar
years after the end of the year in which the first sound recordings of
the work was made (the existing provision mandates a two year window)
(ii) One royalty in respect of such sound recordings shall be paid for
a minimum of fifty thousand copies of each work during each calendar
year in which copies of it are made : {this particular clause has a
significance grounded perhaps in reality in as much as parties have
concerns in relation to exploitation that is not accurately accounted
for}. However the Copyright Board may, by general order, fix a lower
minimum in respect of works in a particular language or dialect having
regard to the potential circulation of such works.
(iii) The sound recordings shall be in the same medium as the last
recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer in
current commercial use.
The only concern remains as to whether the interpretation as to whether
consent of the owner of copyright is required.
The Statement of Objects and reasons sets out that the purpose is to
introduce statutory licensing for version recordings of all sound
recordings to ensure that while making a sound recording of any
literary, dramatic or musical work the interest of the copyright holder
is duly protected. The proposed new section 31C seeks to provide
statutory licence to any person desiring to make a cover version of a
sound recording in respect of any literary, dramatic or musical work,
where sound recordings of that work have been made by or with the
licence or consent of the owner of the right in the work in the same
medium as the last recording, unless the medium of the last recording
is no longer in current commercial use.
However it is interesting to see that proposed new section contains
similar elements to the existing legislation, the interpretation of
which are still pending before various Courts.
The Section as it now stands is as follows (read in continuation
without the breaks that Section 52 necessitates and is only the
relevant extract) “The following acts shall not constitute infringement
of copyright, namely the making of sound recording in respect of any
literary, dramatic or musical work, if (i) Sound recordings of that
work have been made by or with the license of consent of the owner of
the right in the work; (ii) the person making the sound recordings have
given a notice of his intention to make the sound recording, has
provided copies of all covers or labels with which the sound recordings
are to be sold, and has paid in the prescribed manner to the owner of
the rights in the work royalties in respect of all such sound
recordings made by him at the rate fixed by the Copyright Board in this
behalf
Provided that.....”
The proposed amendment would read as (the relevant extract for the
purposes of the article)
“Any person desirous of making a cover version, being a sound recording
in respect of any literary, dramatic or musical work, where sound
recordings of that work have been made by or with the licence or
consent of the owner of the right in the work, may do so subject to the
provisions of this section:
Provided that such sound recordings shall be in the same medium as the
last recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer in
current commercial use.
(2) The person making the sound recordings shall give prior notice of
his intention to make the sound recordings in the manner as may be
prescribed, and provide in advance copies of all covers or labels with
which the sound recordings are to be sold, and pay in advance, to the
owner of rights in each work royalties in respect of all copies to be
made by him, at the rate fixed by the Copyright Board in this behalf:
Provided....”
In essence, the conditions for a statutory license as proposed by the
Amendment remain the same as the conditions for a defence to
infringement of copyright in the existing legislation. Therefore the
issue of whether the consent of the owner of copyright is required
still remains open to interpretation. If the courts do take the view
that consent is necessary under the Section as it now exists, it is
possible that the same interpretation will be taken in relation to the
Amendment.
Given the fact that there are several litigations pending it may not
have been appropriate for the legislature to clarify whether the
consent of the owner of copyright is necessary, but the amendment by
leaving the issue of consent open to interpretation, has not plugged
the gap that has led to years of unresolved litigations.
to version recordings or cover recordings, the interpretation of which
has been in dispute before courts for a considerable period of time.
The courts have, in my view, yet to decide the issue of whether or not
consent is required from the owner of rights for such recordings. In
Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Super Cassettes Industries
Limited (1998) the Delhi High Court had granted an injunction
restraining the sale of the version recordings when the owner of
copyright responded to the party proposing to make the sound recording
and expressly refused permission. The Karnataka High Court came up with
a different view in Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Mars
Recording Pvt. Ltd. (1999). This was appealed to to the Supreme Court
in Gramophone Company of India Limited vs. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. (2001) The Supreme Court, in the view of the author, did not
decide the issue of whether consent is required from the owner of the
works, but remanded the matter back to the trial court. However, the SC
did set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court, stating in its
order that the party who intended to make a recording, relied on the
ingredients of the Copyright Act without pleading the factual basis for
making this recording in the original plaint before the trial court.
While this order was passed close to a decade back, and while there
have been other litigations subsequent to this, the issue of the
requirement of consent of the owner of copyright has still not been
resolved.
One hoped that the present set of amendments would do this;
unfortunately this was not to be. The proposed amendment comes in the
form of a new Section31 C under the title “Statutory License for Cover
Versions”; it is pertinent to note that till date, the Copyright Act
has never used the term “cover version”. The critical statutory change
envisaged is that a version recording will now be treated under a
Statutory Licensing framework and not as a Defence to an Infringement
of Copyright, as is the case now.
There are a few changes to the elements of the Section, significant
among those include
(i)The version recording can only be made after five years calendar
years after the end of the year in which the first sound recordings of
the work was made (the existing provision mandates a two year window)
(ii) One royalty in respect of such sound recordings shall be paid for
a minimum of fifty thousand copies of each work during each calendar
year in which copies of it are made : {this particular clause has a
significance grounded perhaps in reality in as much as parties have
concerns in relation to exploitation that is not accurately accounted
for}. However the Copyright Board may, by general order, fix a lower
minimum in respect of works in a particular language or dialect having
regard to the potential circulation of such works.
(iii) The sound recordings shall be in the same medium as the last
recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer in
current commercial use.
The only concern remains as to whether the interpretation as to whether
consent of the owner of copyright is required.
The Statement of Objects and reasons sets out that the purpose is to
introduce statutory licensing for version recordings of all sound
recordings to ensure that while making a sound recording of any
literary, dramatic or musical work the interest of the copyright holder
is duly protected. The proposed new section 31C seeks to provide
statutory licence to any person desiring to make a cover version of a
sound recording in respect of any literary, dramatic or musical work,
where sound recordings of that work have been made by or with the
licence or consent of the owner of the right in the work in the same
medium as the last recording, unless the medium of the last recording
is no longer in current commercial use.
However it is interesting to see that proposed new section contains
similar elements to the existing legislation, the interpretation of
which are still pending before various Courts.
The Section as it now stands is as follows (read in continuation
without the breaks that Section 52 necessitates and is only the
relevant extract) “The following acts shall not constitute infringement
of copyright, namely the making of sound recording in respect of any
literary, dramatic or musical work, if (i) Sound recordings of that
work have been made by or with the license of consent of the owner of
the right in the work; (ii) the person making the sound recordings have
given a notice of his intention to make the sound recording, has
provided copies of all covers or labels with which the sound recordings
are to be sold, and has paid in the prescribed manner to the owner of
the rights in the work royalties in respect of all such sound
recordings made by him at the rate fixed by the Copyright Board in this
behalf
Provided that.....”
The proposed amendment would read as (the relevant extract for the
purposes of the article)
“Any person desirous of making a cover version, being a sound recording
in respect of any literary, dramatic or musical work, where sound
recordings of that work have been made by or with the licence or
consent of the owner of the right in the work, may do so subject to the
provisions of this section:
Provided that such sound recordings shall be in the same medium as the
last recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer in
current commercial use.
(2) The person making the sound recordings shall give prior notice of
his intention to make the sound recordings in the manner as may be
prescribed, and provide in advance copies of all covers or labels with
which the sound recordings are to be sold, and pay in advance, to the
owner of rights in each work royalties in respect of all copies to be
made by him, at the rate fixed by the Copyright Board in this behalf:
Provided....”
In essence, the conditions for a statutory license as proposed by the
Amendment remain the same as the conditions for a defence to
infringement of copyright in the existing legislation. Therefore the
issue of whether the consent of the owner of copyright is required
still remains open to interpretation. If the courts do take the view
that consent is necessary under the Section as it now exists, it is
possible that the same interpretation will be taken in relation to the
Amendment.
Given the fact that there are several litigations pending it may not
have been appropriate for the legislature to clarify whether the
consent of the owner of copyright is necessary, but the amendment by
leaving the issue of consent open to interpretation, has not plugged
the gap that has led to years of unresolved litigations.
Friday, October 22, 2010
There's no shortcut to success !!
First election after Woman's reservation bill got passed in Lok Sabha, starting from tomorrow. I was going through details of some candidates for the election. There were some broad questions that came to mind (33% to 50%). I have tried to answer each of them in this post.
* Do we need reservation for women?
* Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
* Are reservations really going to make any difference?
* Do we need sub-quotas?
Do we need reservation for women?
A lot has already been written in the mainstream media about the importance that gender equality and empowerment of women plays in the overall development of any society. So I do not wish to repeat what has already been said and to a large extent well understood as well. Empowering women in a society where they have been treated like doormats for centuries is not an easy task. There is bound to be a internal resistance.
Moreover how do we achieve it within the constraints that democracy poses us.China had a cultural revolution from 1966-78, which was imposed on the entire population and was not at all peaceful. In India, any acceptable change has to be brought in an extremely careful manner.
Therefore reservation is one way to empower women. Since 1993, 1/3rd of the seats in panchayats have been reserved for women. This has been referred to as "the greatest social experiment ever". Upon adding the numbers, there are more women elected representatives in India than the rest of the world.
Skeptics might argue that it is still the men who take most of the decisions and women are mere proxies. Most probably it is true. But at least it has brought some amount change in the general attitude of the people towards women. This has got them an entry point, something that would not have been possible without reservation. Changing the rural mindset is not easy. A young boy in a remote village grows watching his father ill-treat his mother. He begins view this as acceptable and is more likely to do the same when he grows up. With such a system in place, it would at least stop such outdated ideas from percolating to the next generation.
Today there are a large number of NGOs that are helping women sarpanches in performing their duties These sarpanches are slowly making their presence felt. They known to focus much more on basic issues like drinking water, sanitation and education. They are much more honest. Since then, the reservations for women have been increased to 50%. I would go on to suggest that this number should be further increased to 75-100% in areas such as Haryana and some part of Punjab where Gender ratios are extremely poor and female infanticide is prevalent.
Moreover, reservation is important because it has been observed that once the seat is dereserved, almost 40% of woman choose not to contest. India's poor record on HDI index can expect to receive a boost in the long run. A professor(with over 25 years of teaching experience) of mine was once discussing this issue. He recalled, how over all these years the psyche of female students changed. While female students of the 80's and 90's would be vocal and aggressive about their rights, the present day female students almost expect equality.As they say, this is how democracy works, slowly.
Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
Reservations at the bottom is needed to bring about social change but is it really needed at the top. Or should merit prevail as we should be more bothered about who is more qualified to lead the country?
India's biggest strength is its democracy and diversity. The idea of India is unique because of its unity in diversity. It has been a tradition in India since the very beginning to have representations of all communities and regions. So all Union Cabinets formed till date have ensured that all communities are well represented. With its abysmally low 10% of elected women representative doesn't goes well with its idea of World's Largest democracy.
One of the major reasons why women are so under-represented is because they have their family responsibilities. This has been well recognized by nearly half of the world and it is time that we also consider this option seriously. Let us not forget that even in the best and most admired companies in the world, the female representation in the boardrooms is extremely low despite good gender ratios at lower levels. The most important reason for this that is again the family responsibilities. In something as important as nation building, it is important to give women their due representation.
Are reservations really going to make any difference?
Reservations are not a panacea and mere reservation is not going to solve everything. Furthermore, just looking around at women politicians Most of them are from political families. Women Empowerment does not means election of such women from political families. In fact such reservations could reduce merit. Wives, daughters, mothers, daughters-in-laws of politicians could be running the show. Another option is that a certain tickets from political parties are reserved for women. The counter-argument given to this suggestion is that women shall be given only losing seats.
Another risk is that this reservation may extend to perpetuity. The caste based reservations introduced in 1950 were supposed to last only 10 years. They have been extended regularly. It is quite possible that the women reservation might take a similar course. Presently this reservation has been made for 15 years, but most probably it shall be there for a long time. In my opinion, there should be a clear road-map to gradually reduce the % of seats reserved for women to around 15%. This would make a balance between merit and social inclusion.
At this point of time, it is impossible to predict whether reservations can bring about any major difference.
Do we need sub-quotas?
Some of the parties like JD(U) and RJD are calling sub-quota for minorities and OBC's. Even though reservations are supposed to eliminate differences, they actually end up doing exactly the opposite. Caste based reservations are a classic example of the same. Reservations based on religion is therefore a dangerous territory.
However, this suggestion mustn't be rejected outright without examining whether there is a need for such a reservation. There is no doubt that women across all communities face numerous hurdles to rise. However, it is incorrect to assume that this is homogeneous across all communities.Women in some communities face much more hurdles than other because some communities are more orthodox than the others.
So while women reservations bill will benefit the women in SC's and ST's, Muslims and OBC women are not likely to benefit much and their representation in Parliament is likely to remain low. For e.g., presently out of 543 members in Lok Sabha, there are only 3 Women Muslim members. If one tries to think of prominent active Women Muslim Politicians, the only name that comes to mind is Mehbooba Mufti. But even she comes from a Political family and she is more likely to take up issues on Kashmir rather the empowerment of Muslim Women.
Furthermore, reservations for OBC's and Muslim women is not easy because there aren't any seats reserved for these communities. Moreover, Muslim population is varies across the country and hence the formula cannot apply across all states. One possible solution is increasing number of seats in Rajya Sabha and nominating members from these communities. Another important thing is that with 33% reservation, the total reserved seats would go upto 48% (22.5%+33%-(22.5/3)). Any further increase to reservation would mean that less than 50% seats are available in the unreserved category.
While the real empowerment of Women can take place at the grassroots level, women leadership across all communities needs to be created at the highest level so that they can take up women issues. Therefore, I believe there is a need to examine the feasibility of sub-quotas within quotas.
Conclusion
There is an old adage, when you educate a man you educate an individual when you educate a woman you educate a whole family. However, reservation is an easy shortcut. Without proper backup steps, it is unlikely to make any significant impact.
Happy Election, Vote for the best. Remember, they are going to rule us.
* Do we need reservation for women?
* Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
* Are reservations really going to make any difference?
* Do we need sub-quotas?
Do we need reservation for women?
A lot has already been written in the mainstream media about the importance that gender equality and empowerment of women plays in the overall development of any society. So I do not wish to repeat what has already been said and to a large extent well understood as well. Empowering women in a society where they have been treated like doormats for centuries is not an easy task. There is bound to be a internal resistance.
Moreover how do we achieve it within the constraints that democracy poses us.China had a cultural revolution from 1966-78, which was imposed on the entire population and was not at all peaceful. In India, any acceptable change has to be brought in an extremely careful manner.
Therefore reservation is one way to empower women. Since 1993, 1/3rd of the seats in panchayats have been reserved for women. This has been referred to as "the greatest social experiment ever". Upon adding the numbers, there are more women elected representatives in India than the rest of the world.
Skeptics might argue that it is still the men who take most of the decisions and women are mere proxies. Most probably it is true. But at least it has brought some amount change in the general attitude of the people towards women. This has got them an entry point, something that would not have been possible without reservation. Changing the rural mindset is not easy. A young boy in a remote village grows watching his father ill-treat his mother. He begins view this as acceptable and is more likely to do the same when he grows up. With such a system in place, it would at least stop such outdated ideas from percolating to the next generation.
Today there are a large number of NGOs that are helping women sarpanches in performing their duties These sarpanches are slowly making their presence felt. They known to focus much more on basic issues like drinking water, sanitation and education. They are much more honest. Since then, the reservations for women have been increased to 50%. I would go on to suggest that this number should be further increased to 75-100% in areas such as Haryana and some part of Punjab where Gender ratios are extremely poor and female infanticide is prevalent.
Moreover, reservation is important because it has been observed that once the seat is dereserved, almost 40% of woman choose not to contest. India's poor record on HDI index can expect to receive a boost in the long run. A professor(with over 25 years of teaching experience) of mine was once discussing this issue. He recalled, how over all these years the psyche of female students changed. While female students of the 80's and 90's would be vocal and aggressive about their rights, the present day female students almost expect equality.As they say, this is how democracy works, slowly.
Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
Reservations at the bottom is needed to bring about social change but is it really needed at the top. Or should merit prevail as we should be more bothered about who is more qualified to lead the country?
India's biggest strength is its democracy and diversity. The idea of India is unique because of its unity in diversity. It has been a tradition in India since the very beginning to have representations of all communities and regions. So all Union Cabinets formed till date have ensured that all communities are well represented. With its abysmally low 10% of elected women representative doesn't goes well with its idea of World's Largest democracy.
One of the major reasons why women are so under-represented is because they have their family responsibilities. This has been well recognized by nearly half of the world and it is time that we also consider this option seriously. Let us not forget that even in the best and most admired companies in the world, the female representation in the boardrooms is extremely low despite good gender ratios at lower levels. The most important reason for this that is again the family responsibilities. In something as important as nation building, it is important to give women their due representation.
Are reservations really going to make any difference?
Reservations are not a panacea and mere reservation is not going to solve everything. Furthermore, just looking around at women politicians Most of them are from political families. Women Empowerment does not means election of such women from political families. In fact such reservations could reduce merit. Wives, daughters, mothers, daughters-in-laws of politicians could be running the show. Another option is that a certain tickets from political parties are reserved for women. The counter-argument given to this suggestion is that women shall be given only losing seats.
Another risk is that this reservation may extend to perpetuity. The caste based reservations introduced in 1950 were supposed to last only 10 years. They have been extended regularly. It is quite possible that the women reservation might take a similar course. Presently this reservation has been made for 15 years, but most probably it shall be there for a long time. In my opinion, there should be a clear road-map to gradually reduce the % of seats reserved for women to around 15%. This would make a balance between merit and social inclusion.
At this point of time, it is impossible to predict whether reservations can bring about any major difference.
Do we need sub-quotas?
Some of the parties like JD(U) and RJD are calling sub-quota for minorities and OBC's. Even though reservations are supposed to eliminate differences, they actually end up doing exactly the opposite. Caste based reservations are a classic example of the same. Reservations based on religion is therefore a dangerous territory.
However, this suggestion mustn't be rejected outright without examining whether there is a need for such a reservation. There is no doubt that women across all communities face numerous hurdles to rise. However, it is incorrect to assume that this is homogeneous across all communities.Women in some communities face much more hurdles than other because some communities are more orthodox than the others.
So while women reservations bill will benefit the women in SC's and ST's, Muslims and OBC women are not likely to benefit much and their representation in Parliament is likely to remain low. For e.g., presently out of 543 members in Lok Sabha, there are only 3 Women Muslim members. If one tries to think of prominent active Women Muslim Politicians, the only name that comes to mind is Mehbooba Mufti. But even she comes from a Political family and she is more likely to take up issues on Kashmir rather the empowerment of Muslim Women.
Furthermore, reservations for OBC's and Muslim women is not easy because there aren't any seats reserved for these communities. Moreover, Muslim population is varies across the country and hence the formula cannot apply across all states. One possible solution is increasing number of seats in Rajya Sabha and nominating members from these communities. Another important thing is that with 33% reservation, the total reserved seats would go upto 48% (22.5%+33%-(22.5/3)). Any further increase to reservation would mean that less than 50% seats are available in the unreserved category.
While the real empowerment of Women can take place at the grassroots level, women leadership across all communities needs to be created at the highest level so that they can take up women issues. Therefore, I believe there is a need to examine the feasibility of sub-quotas within quotas.
Conclusion
There is an old adage, when you educate a man you educate an individual when you educate a woman you educate a whole family. However, reservation is an easy shortcut. Without proper backup steps, it is unlikely to make any significant impact.
Happy Election, Vote for the best. Remember, they are going to rule us.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Copyright amendment bill (2010)
I could attend lot of meetings and debates regarding the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.
The full submission that IMI, IPRS and other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:
Existing Copyright Act
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:
*
compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
*
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
*
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.
These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.
The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.
Proposed Amendments
Some positive amendments
*
Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
*
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
*
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
*
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
*
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
*
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
*
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
*
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
*
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
*
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.
Some negative amendments
*
WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
*
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
*
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
*
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
*
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.
Missed opportunities
*
Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
*
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
*
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
*
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
*
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
*
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
*
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
*
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.
The full submission that IMI, IPRS and other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:
Existing Copyright Act
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:
*
compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
*
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
*
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.
These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.
The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.
Proposed Amendments
Some positive amendments
*
Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
*
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
*
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
*
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
*
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
*
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
*
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
*
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
*
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
*
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.
Some negative amendments
*
WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
*
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
*
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
*
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
*
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.
Missed opportunities
*
Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
*
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
*
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
*
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
*
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
*
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
*
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
*
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Politricks of Kidnapping
Our world shuddered with horror when one of the four Bihar policemen kidnapped by Maoists was murdered in cold blood. Three were released unharmed – and we rejoiced. But is this the end of this cruelest of political games?
Of course not. Within days of the Bihar release, three insurance agents were kidnapped somewhere near Kolkata by suspected Maoists. Why insurance agents? The question is really irrelevant because any human beings will do for militants around the world. They may be policemen, civil servants, children, women, journalists or air/train passengers. Human lives are the best bargaining chips.
Lalu’s Bihar might have taken kidnapping to the level of an everyday business. But whether it is a doctor kidnapped for ransom, or a busload of passengers hijacked by an aggrieved policeman as in Manila, there is a unique fear factor in this business. When Mumbai-based American journalist Daniel Pearl was captured by terrorists in Pakistan, video footage released by the captors, masked men holding guns to the kneeling victim’s head, terrorised the whole world. Then that innocent young man was beheaded. The extraordinary cruelty involved in many kidnappings makes this perhaps the most vexatious problem of our times.
That could also explain why most politically motivated kidnappings are successful. The Iran hostage crisis lasted 444 days following the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran by militants. It lasted that long because neither side wanted a bloodbath. The Americans staged a military rescue operation, but it failed. Eventually diplomatic negotiations by third parties led to the release of all American hostages.
The Tupamaros guerilla movement in Latin America succeeded in ending the myth of American invincibility. Their most dramatic operation was the kidnapping of the US ambassador near his home in Rio de Janeiro in 1969. In two weeks the Brazilian Government capitulated and agreed to release 15 Leftist prisoners. In 1970 the German Ambassador in Guatemala was kidnapped. But the Government refused to free prisoners in exchange and the hapless ambassador was killed.
The Indian Airlines hijack saw the most abject of surrenders. One passenger was killed and many wounded. Even then Delhi not only released the prisoners named by the terrorists, but Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh personally accompanied them to Kandahar. The need for that special tribute to terrorism still remains unexplained.
By contrast, Veerappan was rather decent the way he treated the captured Rajkumar in 2000. The Kannada hero was held captive for 108 days. The desperate Karnataka Government was willing to release the prisoners Veerappan mentioned, but the courts barred any release. In the end money changed hands, though nobody admitted it. But the point was that Rajkumar was safe and sound – and rather more philosophical about life, as was evident from the grace and dignity with which he met the press upon release.
Kidnapping ordinary people is an easy crime to commit. Hence its appeal to those who operate beyond the lines of legitimacy. Religious terrorists do it for a doomed cause. Political terrorists may cite a more plausible cause such as fighting for the rights of the poor and exploited. But all are terrorists and all are taking advantage of the helplessness of the unprotected.
We don’t know what bargains were struck to save at least three lives in Bihar. But we know that more kidnappings, more cowardly acts like train derailment, will take place as long as the problem of basic deprivations of people is not addressed. The more is the pit
Of course not. Within days of the Bihar release, three insurance agents were kidnapped somewhere near Kolkata by suspected Maoists. Why insurance agents? The question is really irrelevant because any human beings will do for militants around the world. They may be policemen, civil servants, children, women, journalists or air/train passengers. Human lives are the best bargaining chips.
Lalu’s Bihar might have taken kidnapping to the level of an everyday business. But whether it is a doctor kidnapped for ransom, or a busload of passengers hijacked by an aggrieved policeman as in Manila, there is a unique fear factor in this business. When Mumbai-based American journalist Daniel Pearl was captured by terrorists in Pakistan, video footage released by the captors, masked men holding guns to the kneeling victim’s head, terrorised the whole world. Then that innocent young man was beheaded. The extraordinary cruelty involved in many kidnappings makes this perhaps the most vexatious problem of our times.
That could also explain why most politically motivated kidnappings are successful. The Iran hostage crisis lasted 444 days following the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran by militants. It lasted that long because neither side wanted a bloodbath. The Americans staged a military rescue operation, but it failed. Eventually diplomatic negotiations by third parties led to the release of all American hostages.
The Tupamaros guerilla movement in Latin America succeeded in ending the myth of American invincibility. Their most dramatic operation was the kidnapping of the US ambassador near his home in Rio de Janeiro in 1969. In two weeks the Brazilian Government capitulated and agreed to release 15 Leftist prisoners. In 1970 the German Ambassador in Guatemala was kidnapped. But the Government refused to free prisoners in exchange and the hapless ambassador was killed.
The Indian Airlines hijack saw the most abject of surrenders. One passenger was killed and many wounded. Even then Delhi not only released the prisoners named by the terrorists, but Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh personally accompanied them to Kandahar. The need for that special tribute to terrorism still remains unexplained.
By contrast, Veerappan was rather decent the way he treated the captured Rajkumar in 2000. The Kannada hero was held captive for 108 days. The desperate Karnataka Government was willing to release the prisoners Veerappan mentioned, but the courts barred any release. In the end money changed hands, though nobody admitted it. But the point was that Rajkumar was safe and sound – and rather more philosophical about life, as was evident from the grace and dignity with which he met the press upon release.
Kidnapping ordinary people is an easy crime to commit. Hence its appeal to those who operate beyond the lines of legitimacy. Religious terrorists do it for a doomed cause. Political terrorists may cite a more plausible cause such as fighting for the rights of the poor and exploited. But all are terrorists and all are taking advantage of the helplessness of the unprotected.
We don’t know what bargains were struck to save at least three lives in Bihar. But we know that more kidnappings, more cowardly acts like train derailment, will take place as long as the problem of basic deprivations of people is not addressed. The more is the pit
Monday, September 6, 2010
yes, we have options, do we have the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
yes, we have options, do we have the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)