The right to copy

Do you think
1.Copyright exists in an idea or theme or knowledge?
2.Copyright is the right to permit copying in a broad sense?
3.If you were to come across a Spanish work and translate it into Tamil or Urdu, that would tantamount to violation of copyright.
4.As an author, that unless you register your work with the copyright board or the registrar of copyright, the copyright law does not protect you.
5. Copyright for a work exists during the lifetime of the author and falls into public domain immediately after his death?
6. An author cannot assign copyright in his work to anyone else.
7. Copyright law varies from country to country and as such infringement in one country leads to immunity in another.
8. A title of a book can be copyright protected.

Music (sound recording), cinema, software, drama, performing arts and literary (and other forms of artistic) works fall under the domain of copyright law. The write-up that follows mainly deals with copyright law relating to books.

In broad terms, copyright is the right to copy. The copyright owner of a literary work has the right to make copies or reproduce the work and disseminate it to the public. In essence, the copyright law enables the copyright holder to a) reproduce the work in print/ electronic/multimedia form and issue copies to the public b) make a film or audio recording or perform or communicate the work c) translate the work and
d) adapt, spin-off, custom publish the work.

In any literary work, the first owner of copyright is always the author. It is the author of the work who assigns the copyright to a publisher for mutual benefit. Copyright is a basket or bundle of rights. The copyright owner may assign all or some of the rights. For instance, an author PK Madhavan (hypothetical) is the original owner of the copyright for the book Nine Lives of Madhu. He enters into a contract with a publisher Vijay Nicole for publishing the book in print format for the Indian Territory in all Indian languages. So the Indian territorial, adaptation and language rights for this book are with Vijay Nicole. Vijay Nicole in turn may sign up with various Indian language publishers for publishing in Bengali, Malayalam etc. The author may also sign up separate contracts for cinema and music rights in all Indian languages. The international rights for publishing this book may be with Simon Schuster, a New York based publisher or any other publisher. All dealings in most cases benefit the author and/or the copyright owner. All assignment of copyright should be in writing and cover certain legal requirements.

It may be surprising to realize that copyright does not exist in an idea, theme or fact or knowledge. Copyright is vested in the ex-pression of all these. Copyright exists in the form, style, ex-pression, manner, presentation, symbolic representation like figures, drawings, illustrations, etc. For example, a sand clock in a class VI textbook caused a peculiar problem to two publishers. The published books of the two publishers had identical sand clocks, which was all right. But the frame had the same design. It was this frame and its design which was the bone of contention. Finally the problem was solved, as the artist was the culprit. Both publishers had engaged the same artist. As the artist was hard-pressed for time, he had used the same figure.

Likewise there is no copyright to a title of a book.

In India, the duration of copyright starts from the time the work is created, remains so during the lifetime of the author and then subsists for a period of 60 years after the death of the author. In the case of a photograph, the copyright is for a period of 60 years from its publication.

The Indian Copyright Act 1957 is amended from time to time and incorporates features of international conventions, treaties including the Berne convention and Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). While some provisions in copyright law vary from country to country, the fundamental charter is the same facilitating free flow of information and protection of intellectual property rights.

An author of a work need not register copyright to claim ownership. If an author writes his work by hand or by any other means, he becomes the copyright owner. The need for registration arises only in the case of a legal dispute. Of course it is important to be able to prove the original piece of work and the date of its creation. For instance, the date of storing of the work on a computer is considered adequate evidence. Some authors do post a copy of their work by a registered post to themselves thereby establishing their ownership of their work. Of course they may have to leave the parcel unopened to be opened by a court of law or any other authority in case of a violation. In India, we use the copyright symbol © and the year of publication. In some countries using the copyright symbol © is not mandatory.

When any copyright material is used with permission, for personal use, research and when such use is not substantial and does not cause a loss to the copyright owner, it is said to be fair dealing. Copyright violation happens in many forms including plagiarism, paraphrasing, photocopying, piracy and so on.

For more information on copyright, do consult www.mhrd.govt.in, www.copyright.com, , www.nasscom.org, www.ipww.com, and the wikipedia.

I am not a lawyer. I have written this to provide some insight into copyright law and the attempt is provide information. Of course I have consulted the copyright bare act and other sources believed to be reliable. I would prefer not to answer individual questions relating to copyright. I welcome your views, suggestions and comments.

Tumko dekha….tumko dekha…
tumko dekha….to yeh khayal aaya
paaglon ke stock mein naya maal aaya!

Idhar khuda hai, udar khuda hai,
jidar dekho udar khuda hai,
idhar-udhar bus khuda hi khuda hai
jidhar nahi khuda hai….
udhar kal khudega!

koi pathar se na maare mere dewaane ko……..
koi pathar se na maare mere dewaane ko……..
koi pathar se na maare mere dewaane ko……..
abe aage bhi to bol……… ……
neuclear power ka jamaana hai, bomb se
udaa do saale ko………. ………

tuhaar chehraa moti samaan
tuhaar chehraa moti samaan…
moti hamaar kutte ka naam!!

tere dar pe sanam hazar baar aayenge,
tere dar pe sanam hazar baar aayenge…..
ghanti bajayenge aur bhaag jayenge !!

Jis waqt khuda ne tumhe banaya hoga,
ek saroor sa uske dil pe chaya hoga…
pehle socha hoga tujhe jannat mein rakh lun..
phir usse zoo ka khayal aaya hoga!!!

Mere marne ke baad mere doston,
yu aansoo na bahana,
Agar meri yaad aaye to,
sidhe upar chale aana!!

You may not see,
You may not feel,
The way I do.

But it doesn’t matter…

You may laugh,
You may be happy,
While I am sad.

But it doesn’t matter…

You may be untouched,
You may be unaware,
While a hell breaking inside me.

But it doesn’t matter…

I have deceived myself enough,
I have coerced myself enough,
All I have to do now is.

To try doing once more…

So it doesn’t matter.

Every one knows whatever happened in Mumbai was a political game; Divide n Rule, each political party has done that at some point of time directly or indirectly to win the vote bank sometimes over religion, then cast and now states!! Unfortunately an average mob mentality gets carried away creating unnecessary disturbance. It is pathetic. Leaders are restricted to issue the statements of condemn to the media. Has any leader ever had guts to face and stop the mob from doing this madness? We do not have any charismatic leader who can actually move out in public and guide them the right way. These leaders themselves are surrounded by security commandos, what security they will give to the nation?

Seeing such people for candidature of political portfolios; who goes to cast his/her vote? A huge fraction of our population shies away from voting for obvious reasons so what type of democratic country are we living in?

Not that, picture is so grim, country is moving on fast track but when such things happen, one wonders how a handful of people with ill intentions can overpower the huge population of India.

And we are probably restricted to drawing room discussions?

Coming back to Mumbai again, I think there is hard work of people from all the states, who have come and settled there , because of which Mumbai has seen so much growth. Be it Industrialists from Gujrat, Merchants from Rajasthan, Film makers from Punjab or Actors from North or any other part of India apart from work of Mumbaikars ( What defines it???)

So, no part of country belongs to any particular cast, language or religion , what matters is taking country ahead with your hard work, wherever you are , whoever you are.

Aren't there thousands of Indians performing brilliantly in US, then should they be treated this way?

The other day I met a friend of mine who was planning to go for a movie along with his family and I was surprised as that movie (Though awarded one) was not meant for the kids. When questioned, my friend quipped “It is still safer than watching the news channels nowadays”!
Jokes apart, but it is true. Usually one encourages their children to watch good programs on TV and once upon time news was also included in the list of good programs but not anymore. Nowadays they portray such a picture as if this world is a hell of a place and not worth living in it. I remember, a couple of years back I’d received a forwarded mail from a friend which had a message by then President, APJ Abul Kalam.

It read that, “When we have so many good things happening in our country, there are so many achievements on small scale to large scale. Why doesn’t that become a headline in the media?”

There is growth; we are going ahead, our country is leading in some sector, there are good things happening so if these things are brought as headlines there will be flow of positive energy and people will feel proud of our country. Well that does not mean that there should be no negative news. The job of media is to present true picture of course but how do you project it, matters a lot.

Specially when it comes to any sex scandal, molestation case, harassment case, or any celebrity’s personal life, even people’s extra marital affairs, media literally barges in to people’s home and set up their transmission system right there. The news which can be read out or be printed in the text with the impact required is projected with such a pictorial elaboration that it goes completely against the victim and she/he feels more traumatised and criminals are somewhere glorified in that bargain.

There is continuously repeat telecast of such video clippings and the channel appears to be more interested in projecting that they were the first to report about this.

One simply can not allow the child to watch the news when even an adult can not take it. But it seems this is selling because everything is TRP oriented. There is such large section of people who are watching news for such spicy reports? In that case media’s responsibility increases even more because it has the capacity to reach out to entire population of the country.

Instead of showing the deeds of some tantrik, or some story of miracles, it would be so nice if some reporter reaches out to villagers who have successfully done water harvesting and dealt with the water problem or an engineer who is living in the village and with the help of the computers and internet spreading the education and awareness. There are so many selfless people who are doing such incredible jobs for the growth of our country and they are not in limelight neither they are doing it for the same; but if such works are brought in the news, is appreciated, and if this is iterated people will be definitely encouraged.

One can tell their children to watch the news again and they can proudly say that there are good things happening in our country and they too can be part of its growth and be proud of it.

The Hypothesis: All the prophets, Gurus are the manifestations of "The God" or "The Nature" or "The Supreme Conscious" in Its/His efforts to put some sense into the humans bent upon selfdestruction at any cost. Prophet Mohammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mahaveer, Sri Krishna are all the same.

The Question: Then, why do we have so many religious and so many different Holy books (The Quaran, The Bible and the Gita)

Imagine a professor who is considered a great authority in Physics. However he teaches one class each at a secondary-school, high school, pre-university and University everyday. At the secondary school he would say, "All matter is made of small particles called Atoms and Light is a form of energy.". At the High school, he would say that "Light also has particals, they are called photons". When at Pre-University he would say that "Light is an electro-magnetic wave" Finally at the University to his Phd students, he would reveal the ultimate. He would say "I dont know whether light is a particle or wave. These are the facts that support each theory. Now, you decide and debate!"

It was the same professor who taught all the classes. So, why did he speak differently? Was he trying to mislead his wards by being untruthful? No, I bet not! What he said depended on to whom he was teaching and how much they can absorb. He was only trying not to overwhelm them with more than they can chew. It is not that he didnt know the ultimate truth that he taught at the University when he was teaching at the secondary school.

In a similar way, The Supreme Conscious when takes form of a "Guru" teaches depending on the state of mind of the ward. Jesus had come when people were fighting each other for money and lust. Greed had taken over the mankind. So The Bible was addressed to common man and has ten commandments that had to say, "Dont Steal, Love thy neighbour, Dont be immoral..etc" . When Prophet Muhammad had come people must have forgotten God, overwhelmed by luxury, indulging in music, masti and women, fighting over whose God is Great (Different pagan religions worshipping different Gods which included idol worship) So Muhammad had to say "God is one. Dont worship the Idols. Worship the formless. Indulging in Music is sin, Women must be modestly dressed ...etc"

Then What about Bhagawat Geetha? To whom was it revealed? It was told to Arjuna, one of the most pious, righteous men at that time. Arjuna need not be told "Dont indulge in women" He need not be told "Dont steal"
And moreover, it was not revealed to Arjuna for no reason. Even he had to earn his worthiness. Arjuna and Krishna had been the best of pals since childhood. Did krishna not find time other than in the midst of the battle field to teach Arjuna? It was not revealed till then because Arjuna was not capable of absorbing The Gita till then. See, the Guru (here krishna) had no favouritism!!! Even if Arjuna was his best friend, Krishna didnt tell him till he was worthy to be told.

So Gita was revealed to the most pious and righteous man of the age, that too when he was at his best state of mind (state of Absolute surrender) and he beseeched Krishna to reveal the truth to him. (Arjuna says, I know not what to do. To you I surrender....Please tell me what to do)

Then the Guru had revealed "The Bhagawat Geeta" to Arjuna. While teaching such a worthy pupil, the Guru doesnt waste time in the trivia..(Not that they had any time for that on the battle-field ) So it is understandable that Gita has The Utlimate Truth in the most conscise way..that the Supreme Conscious would ever want to teach to a human !!

So Gita becomes better than Bible or Quran not by virtue of who taught it, but by virtue of to whom it was taught!!

Disclaimer: "Gita becomes better than Bible or Quran ..." It is just my opinion and mine alone. I found this logic that i have presented very acceptable. My bestest friend from kinder garden is a muslim and my second best friend is a christian. I have been to a Darga as well as church with them. So obviously i have enough and equal respect for all the religions and do not intend to insult or down play any religion or Holy Book.

Request: I know i am treading on dangerous ground. Please do not get emotional and try to quote sensational parts of Quran (Kill the Kafirs, polygamy for men..etc) or Gita(the caste system, untouchability...etc) to prove what you say. and at the same time do present any objective and complete logic that supports the hypothesis and answers the question

Krishna taught and Arjuna understood. And surely neither of them indulge in any of the crimes that the modern day Hinduism is charged with (untouchability..etc) If you and I misinterpret and misunderstand and fight ...it doesnt reflect badly on the Book. It shows our state of mind and our worthiness.

addendum:

I could not read Quran or Bible, though i would like to. But i did read Gita and it is a must read ! The best sloka that i often quote is

"Vidya vinaya sampanne brahmane gavi hastini
sunichaiva svapaakecha pandita sama darsanaha"

Which means "Only a person who can see that a scholarly brahmin,holy cow, elephant and a person who eats dog meat are all equal and can treat them equally can be called a pundit" (It is not enough if you externally treat them equally, you should be able to actually "see" (sama darsanaha) that they are equal)

Now, thats not what you call untouchability for sure !!!!!

Daddy, do you love me?

Yes beta. Of course I love you.

No, you don’t.

Why do you say so?

Because while you say that, you don’t even look over your papers!!!

Kittu, you are so kind, at least you let me know the reason for your rejection. Your mother didn’t.

Till the last day, I told her that I loved her. I told her those three words over phone, in greeting cards, from behind newspapers, from across walls, from the balcony, and hell, even from the ropeway at Hrishikesh. But never did I tell her that while looking her in her eyes or holding her hands… And what of the lesson learnt too late?

Smile… is a curve that can make a lot of things straight.

They were waiting for their turn in the doctor’s clinic. Atmosphere was gloomy, and no one was talking to anyone else. An old man came in, and sat down. He was looking very anxious and tense. Besides him, a lady was sitting with a 10 months baby in her arms. Next moment, the baby just looked up at him with that great big smile that is so characteristic of babies. The gentleman smiled back at the baby. Soon he struck up in a conversation with the lady about her baby and his grandchildren. And soon, the entire reception room joined in, and the boredom and tension was converted into a pleasant and enjoyable experience. (Incident taken from a book)

How often do we, adults, smile for others, like what the baby did in this incident?

My sister’s baby boy is growing very fast. Now he is enjoying his broken speech, and has picked up a habit of talking over mobile phones. The next day I called up, my sis gave him the phone to ‘talk’. He picked it up, started with maaaa… and kept speaking… In between he broke into laughter. Then again he would talk, and again another laughter. This continued for a long time, and now he was not ready to give the handset back! But why did the baby laugh? Because he was happy that he had got an opportunity to talk over the mobile phone, and his laughter was a very natural and humane way to express that delight.

How often do we, adults, express our delight in the form of a natural laughter, like what the baby did?

The title of this piece is too radical for me; I never thought I would ever write this. But some of your comments on my previous post (Why I like Lal Krishna Advani) made me write this. Now please try to understand this.

I strongly believe in one philosophy, which incidentally was said by Gandhi Ji:

Hate the crime; not the criminal.

I hope we understand the difference between the crime and the criminal. But what restricts us from practicing that? Failing to follow this philosophy made some of us to comment harsh on Karan Thapar, and some to criticize Mr. Advani. My concern is that unless we follow this philosophy, we create a mental block which restricts us from seeing what pearl lies inside the hard shell, how bright is the sunshine inside the harsh sun rays, how cold is the breeze in midst of the bad weather, how good is the rose among the thorn, in short – how beautiful life is in midst of our ugly daily experiences! Following this philosophy made me wish Sonia Gandhi gets well soon when I heard her illness, the same made me empathize with Pakistanis when Bhutto died, the same makes me feel sorry equally for Saddam and Bush. In a nutshell: it is up to you whether you want to learn something good from all or not. You may not like Advani for whatever reason, but you should genuinely appreciate the humility that he portrayed.

I am proud to say that I learnt at least these five things from Karan Thapar’s experiences with Mr. Advani:

o Never to evade a direct question

o To answer frankly and to the point

o Never fail to make up

o If necessary, never hesitate to apologise.

o In essence, have the bigness of heart and humility to apologise.

Am I making sense? Shouldn’t we learn to see crime and the criminal as separate things? That is why I don’t hate Nathu Ram Godse, though I hate what he did – to murder an unarmed old man.

From the age of 9 I wanted to be a part of the Indian army and thankfully my height(6ft)and strong physique supported the dream.Also da passion i had in my heart for the country while my friends wanted to fly abroad for their further studies and job made me get deeper into my ambition.

I turned 17 and fortunately:D passed my boards.Now the next step was to fill all forms for admission into college.As a person who does what she feels for I decided to fill form for the Indian army entrance exam but I dint...coz when u want to move one step people around you pull you 100 steps back....

I still remember;it was 19th May'07 and a Retd Major general who stays across the street;visited my dad.Dad out of curosity(i regret it though)asked him"ab batao kya isse army join karni chahiye?"and quick came da reply "nahi".

It left my eyes wide open...I felt like throwing this uncle out of the house.especially when he has served the country previously;how could he even say like this?thus taking him to be my enemy i decided to attack him with my machine gun(my questions)i asked "why?"and he answeres"kyunki Indian army ladies ke liye safe nahi hai"

Before I could ask why I got a be silent look from my mom....

Later;I got the following information-women need to undergo alot of social and physical constraints.This statement makes me wonder what can be worst dan giving birth to a child?
Also i dont understand that when we talk of equal opportunity why dont we provide admission to women in Nda?How can we decide as a prejudice dat women cant b successful in da indian army?

Do you agree dat women should be allowed to join it?atleast one chance should be given...

if so then leave in ur comments and i shall reply to u.