Party channels coming

What does not happen in any other democracy in the world is about to happen in India: the Indian National Congress is ready to launch a national television channel in Hindi. Two regional channels in Maharashtra and Rajasthan are also in the works under the general umbrella of Jai Hind TV.

This is equivalent to the Labour Party or the Conservative Party in Britain starting a channel of its own. Or imagine the Republican Party of the US having a channel in feisty opposition to the Democratic Party channel. Brits will puke at the idea; Americans will revolt.

Italy is the only democracy in the world where the Prime Minister is also an active television owner. But Silvio Berlusconi was an owner of channels first and then political leader; it isn't that his or any other party in Italy has a news channel.

India will be unique. The Congress Party will own the channels and directly run them. They will of course be in addition to Doordarshan which is patriotically inclined to carry the messages of the ruling party to the masses. But a party channel can afford to be more strident than a government channel.

Stridency is going to be an important part of the Congress channel. Oscar Fernandes who is spearheading talks over the new channel said bluntly: “Party-owned channels will help to spread information in a proper manner”.

Not that party-owned channels are anything new in India. The southern states have been under their thumb for a long time. Channels owned by the Karunanidhi family and by Jayalalitha have a virtual monopoly in Tamil Nadu. Jagan Reddy's Sakshi came out of the blue and established itself with investments no one else could match. In Karnataka H. D. Kumaraswamy started his own channel. Very recently the widely disliked mining king, Janardhan Reddy, followed suit.

Perhaps the most successful party-owned channel is the CPM's Kairali. Actually Kerala is a case by itself with 20 channels already filling the air and 14 others about to enter the fray. Kairali, one of many entrepreneurial initiatives launched by the capitalist leaders of the communist party, is now a high-asset entity with its own very valuable real estate in the centre of the state capital.

No doubt to counter Kairali, the Congress leadership in Kerala started the Jai Hind channel in 2007. It has put Rs 60 crore into it already and has lined up another Rs 50 crore to add to it. Oscar Fernandes said “the Kerala experiment was a huge success”. By what yardstick, he didn't say. While Kairali disguises its partisanship with a touch of professionalism, Jai Hind lays it on thick. Probably it is a success because it gives an uninterrupted platform to Congress leaders to hold forth.

When Congress rushes in, will others fear to tread? The BJP may now launch three channels at once, to suit the three ideologies it is simultaneously pursuing – one for the country, another for Gujarat and the third for Karnataka. The Thackerays must follow. The channel worth waiting for will be Maya TV from Uttar Pradesh. And Mamta TV? What a free country is India!

But the ultimate question remains: What is the effectiveness – even relevance – of propaganda that looks like propaganda? Are voters swayed by what party mouthpieces dish out? Not all the propaganda of the emergency years could save Indira Gandhi in 1977. Not all the grand claims of the Janata Government could stop Indira Gandhi's return in 1980. And not all the propaganda of the Rajiv Gandhi years could prevent his rout in the post-Bofors election. Jai Hind TV will do no better.

The Indian voter has a surprisingly well-developed political instinct. Propagandists have failed to subvert this instinct. The voter will watch TV humbug, even collect his free TV set and 2-rupee rice – and vote as a responsible citizen should. Jai Hind!

What's after Kasab? Another strike?

There are things you can do with Pakistan and things you cannot. Among the “cannot” is reasoning over the 26/11 attack on Mumbai. Pakistan's stonewalling on this issue has been so relentlessly self-serving that we should now expect a worsening of the situation. In answer to the death sentence confirmed on Ajmal Kasab, Pakistan may now show its defiance by (a) releasing Kasab's handler and the operational leader of the Mumbai attack, Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, and (b) attempting a new 26/11 as quickly as possible.

They have three advantages while India has none. First, the Pakistani military's visceral hostility to India gives it a motivation that matches only Israel's unstoppable motivation to destroy Palestine; even if they get Kashmir on a silver platter, the war against India will continue because the need to justify Pakistan's communal birth will continue. Second, China's unconditional support enables an otherwise emasculated Pakistan to match the economic giant that is India, bomb for bomb.

The third and surprising factor is America's support to Pakistan which is as decisive as China's. America's problem is that it recognises only terror against America as terror. To fight America's war against terror, it needs Pakistan's logistical cooperation. Pakistan cleverly takes the Americans for a ride, extending cooperation one day, denying it another day. In the process, India's war against terror makes no blip on American radar. American military supplies come pouring into Pakistan with user's manuals stipulating that they fire/fly only westward, never eastward.

That's dumb. But what we should note here is that Pakistan, client state though it is, has the guts to stand up against its provider. It did so when unmanned US drones wreaked havoc in its tribal areas. It is doing so right now over a US embassy man (CIA ?), killing two Pakistanis (ISI ?). America has threatened the worst, and eventually Pakistan may yield, but not until it gets its pound of flesh.

Does India ever stand up when it is bullied, challenged, insulted? When Australian racists took it out on Indian students, when American security guards body-checked India's ambassadors because one wore a saree and another a turban, when America put radio-tags on Indian students who had valid visas, when Sri Lankans killed our fishermen, we said gravely each time that it was unacceptable. Then we went on to accept it lying down. Never once did we take action that was acceptable.

The result is : Not one country in the world respects us, to say nothing of fearing us. And fear – of military might, trade retaliation, diplomatic offensive, covert countermoves – is one of the more effective planks of international relations in today's cynical world. Our weight in this world is far below what our size, economy and potential warrant.

Pakistan knows this all too well. Pakistani leadership not only has no fear of India; it has contempt for India. This came out most tellingly when the recently ousted former Foreign Minister, Mehmood Qureshi, brought his full arrogance to bear on S.M.Krishna – with Krishna taking it in stoic silence. Civilised behaviour is wasted on the uncivilised.

Pakistan uses big words like “non-state players” to justify its inaction over 26/11. And why not? India, meak and eminently bulliable as always, is suddenly saying that it is ready for a resumption of dialogue, no conditions attached. So what happened to the earlier publicly stated policy that dialogue was meaningless when terror went unchecked ?

The answer in all likelihood lies in Washington. It does not require inside intelligence to guess that America must be pressurising India to resume normalcy with Pakistan. It doesn't take much pressurising either because Manmohan Singh's India loves nothing more than being in the good books of America.

So Pakistan is free to do what it loves more than anything else – appearing to assist America's war on terror while carrying on its own war on India. Unless India learns how to stand up, we have reasons to worry.

A wake up call

News like these always make we think whether my state is really a 'Gods own country' or are we really literate?

"The woman was attacked between Vallathol Nagar and Kalamandalam stations just as the train was nearing its destination Shoranur. It was Charlie’s physical handicap — his left palm was severed — that helped some passengers sitting in the next compartment to take note of his sudden entry and exit."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/134437/kerala-train-rape-womans-condition.html

Security in Indian Railways sucks. Let it be passenger safety or coach safety. They generate a profit Rs 10K crore and god knows what does they do with that.
Ever since this incident happened the usual blame game has started. Cant these guys stop blaming n start acting?? I wonder for what are they spending the crores earned in income ?

The current railway incident is yet another issue for all the news channels to boost their TRP. All this nataks will fall down in 2 - 3 days, till they get a new news scope. Continue all the blame games... Is this the best u guys can do ? Pity these news channels n the irresponsible policy makers in Indian railways.

Some people might say, it's practically not possible to monitor all the coaches. WTF!
What practically difficulty ? Nothings that difficult, there shud be some political will and fore sight... Vote for merit , not blind following n family ruling... A total Policy change is the need of the hour... N stopping of these idiotic blame games...

At present Railway security is zero. There is no security in ladies compartments and in most of the trains ladies compartment is the last one..ie in so many stations this compartment will not come on the platforms. Recruiting more people to RPF should be the first thing to do. Its a very small force comparing the user density for a start. The number of RPF people working under Trivandrum division for a reality check , its less than 20 women cops n less than 200 male cops . Is tht enuff ?
Even if they have enough people, the thing is they just have to be more alert, ignorance is the reason for the incident what has hpnd recently.

I have some suggestion... Railway can provide emergency alarm switches on all compartments. Finance is not a problem... One need the will to execute a series of measures and plans.A change is needed for sure...

There should be a lady cop posted permanently in the ladies comp, not for few weeks.

The new report mentioned that the people sitting in the adjacent compartments heard her scream. Yet they didn't bother to go and check, there was a funny cartoon in Mathrubhumi on that. When it comes to responsibilities it has to be collective and we cannot wash our hands off by putting all the blame on Govt.
Media is playing around with this news because it is a rare and never-heard-before incident in recent times as compared to the other rape and sex-racket news that is frequently appearing in the news.

Ladies should be careful. Never entertain strangers while travelling.

Best Moments

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

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.

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.

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.