From sunil at mahiti.org Sat May 3 03:31:50 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: 03 May 2003 03:31:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] RIAA cashes in on file-swapping students In-Reply-To: <1043444303.974.152.camel@sunil> References: <1043444303.974.152.camel@sunil> Message-ID: <1051912910.781.5.camel@sunil> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30522.html RIAA cashes in on file-swapping students By Ashlee Vance in San Francisco Posted: 01/05/2003 at 22:49 GMT The RIAA has tacked on $59,500 to the amount four college students must pay in addition to their student loans. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) settled on this amount as part of a lawsuit it filed aginst the students last month. The music-label backed organization could have sought as much as $100 million from the students but let them off with individual fines ranging from $12,000 for one student, $15,000 for two and $17,500 for the last. The kids can stack these payments on top of their college loans, as the deal calls for them to make an installment on the lump sum each year from 2003 to 2006. The father of Jesse Jordan - a student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who was fined by the RIAA - expressed his displeasure over the agreement to the AP . "The furthest thing from his mind is trying to steal copyrights," Andy Jordan told the AP. "That's Jesse's life savings, how small is that? How much value is there to trashing his name ... in every city, in every country on the planet?" Examples The RIAA is, of course, looking to make examples out of our youngsters. Unlike companies such as Napster, Grokster or StreamCast, the college students were not running large scale P2P networks. Instead, they appear to have just been providing a search mechanism that looked across shared folders on their school networks. The "ease of use" features in Windows XP to see files on a network made it relatively simple for the students to pull this off. The RIAA called them mini-Napsters, but the technology resembles something akin to Google more than anything else, and Google may be next. The RIAA, however, doesn't like creative types making it easier for college students to funnel files across high speed university connections. Even though some students may be sharing photos or notes, the money the Pigopolists are losing to file trading outweighs the need to take advantage of useful technology. Thankfully, there are some judges out there who have challenged the RIAA's ability to attack innovation. The four students were forced to say they will not pirate copyrighted music on purpose and will shut down their search services. They did not admit guilt. "I don't believe that I did anything wrong," said 18-year-old Daniel Peng, a student at Princeton, in a statement. On a side note, Morpheus 3.0 was released today.® -- Sunil Abraham, CEO MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org From mary at sarai.net Fri May 16 14:01:58 2003 From: mary at sarai.net (mary) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:01:58 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [URL] Judge mulls DVD-copying case Message-ID: <3EC4A1FE.1040500@sarai.net> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/15/2336259.shtml?tid=93&tid=126&tid=99&tid=123 Seven movie studios are seeking to prevent 321 Studios from selling its DVD X Copy and DVD Copy Plus programs, alleging that the products violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibition on software that can be used to circumvent copyright protections. US District Judge Illston asked Department of Justice attorney Zacharia to explain the conundrum of locking up copyrighted works behind encryption and then making the breaking of that encryption illegal, even after the copyrights on those works expire. The judge wondered if it would effectively extend copyrights to keep such works out of the public domain. Zacharia said it would not, because the copyright had expired. "But it's encrypted. If it doesn't stop being encrypted, it's still encrypted," Illston said, adding that such protected works still couldn't be legally copied. From mary at sarai.net Fri May 16 14:09:22 2003 From: mary at sarai.net (mary) Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:09:22 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [URL] Judge mulls DVD-copying case Message-ID: <3EC4A3BA.5060500@sarai.net> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/15/2336259.shtml?tid=93&tid=126&tid=99&tid=123 Seven movie studios are seeking to prevent 321 Studios from selling its DVD X Copy and DVD Copy Plus programs, alleging that the products violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibition on software that can be used to circumvent copyright protections. US District Judge Illston asked Department of Justice attorney Zacharia to explain the conundrum of locking up copyrighted works behind encryption and then making the breaking of that encryption illegal, even after the copyrights on those works expire. The judge wondered if it would effectively extend copyrights to keep such works out of the public domain. Zacharia said it would not, because the copyright had expired. "But it's encrypted. If it doesn't stop being encrypted, it's still encrypted," Illston said, adding that such protected works still couldn't be legally copied. From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 16:37:52 2003 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (Sudhir Krishnaswamy) Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:07:52 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Updates on Unix Code Message-ID: Dear All Am sure that some of you must be following the recent challenge posed to the LINUX movement by the assertion of IPRs in the UNIX code. This news article details Microsoft's recent decision to license the UNIX technology from the SCO group. Sudhir http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1007528.html Microsoft to license Unix code By Scott Ard Staff Writer, CNET News.com May 18, 2003, 10:45 PM PT Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems. According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a $1 billion lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which is aggressively pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows in corporate back shops. Microsoft's Windows has a monopoly in the market for desktop operating systems, with a market share greater than 90 percent. Linux, which has been developed by thousands of contributors and can be freely obtained, has caught on as a worthy competitor in the market for corporate servers. In the past two years, Microsoft has repeatedly labeled Linux as a threat to the Redmond, Wash.-based computing giant, partly because of its low cost. Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability." Unix was invented more than 30 years ago by AT&T's Unix Systems Laboratories. In many ways Linux works similarly to Unix, making it relatively easy to translate Unix software to Linux. AT&T sold the Unix intellectual property to Novell Networks, which in turn sold it to the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera International, a seller of Linux, then acquired from SCO the Unix rights and two SCO products, OpenServer and UnixWare. Then last year, Caldera changed its name to SCO Group to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from its SCO business and not from the Linux products. But SCO has recently alleged that parts of the Unix source code have been copied into Linux, and it is seeking fees from Linux users. In March, SCO sued IBM for $1 billion, alleging that Big Blue had used SCO's Unix code in Linux. IBM, along with Hewlett-Packard, has been a major backer of Linux. Last week, SCO escalated the battle by sending hundreds of letters to large corporations warning them that their use of Linux could infringe on SCO's intellectual property. SCO's letter stated, in part, "We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user." Some analysts said the move was an attempt by SCO to be acquired by another company--possibly Microsoft, IBM or another firm with a stake in the matter. "I guess suing IBM wasn't enough to get them acquired, so (the letters are) the next stage," Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff said. Microsoft's public disdain of Linux stretches back more than two years. In March 2001, Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie said releasing source code into the public domain is "unhealthy," causes security risks and "as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers." A few months later, in an interview with CNET News.com, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates sought to warn corporate users about the GNU General Public License, which Linux is distributed under. "Some of our source codes are out there and very available, like Windows CE," Gates said. "Some generally require a license, like Windows itself. We have no objection to free software, which has been around forever. But we do think there are problems for commercial users relative to the GPL, and we are just making sure people understand the GPL. "Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued in many ways. It's a topic that you can leap on and say, 'Microsoft doesn't make free software.' Hey, we have free software; the world will always have free software. I mean, if you characterize it that way, that's not right. But if you say to people, 'Do you understand the GPL?' And they'll say, 'Huh?' And they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them." The next stage in the fight between SCO and IBM could occur next month--SCO has threatened to revoke IBM's Unix license on June 13. News.com's Michael Kanellos contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030519/19d5a105/attachment.html From lawrenceliang at vsnl.net Tue May 20 14:51:28 2003 From: lawrenceliang at vsnl.net (lawrenceliang at vsnl.net) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:51:28 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Gee, thanks Barbara Message-ID: <20030520092128.404221149E9@webmail.vsnl.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030520/ef2ef582/attachment.pl From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 15:25:41 2003 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (Sudhir Krishnaswamy) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:55:41 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Gee, thanks Barbara References: <20030520092128.404221149E9@webmail.vsnl.com> Message-ID: Dear All As Lawrence points out this copyright suit threatens to change the way Indian content industries operate - and for that reason should be taken very seriously! I will make a limited point about the legal character of this challenge. Alongwith the RG Anand case that Lawrence referred to we must look closely at the HC decisions in the recent Swayamvar case [which involved a tele-serial] and the Vikram-Betaal case where the court has allowed for differing scope of protection for ideas on which television serials are based. The inability of the court to arrive at a consistent and well articulated position on the scope of infringement may have two sources. A. Between the scope of different infringing acts 1. copying 2. adapting B. And the protection to be given to expression as opposed to ideas in copyright law. The idea of a strong commons of ideas explored in some detail in the Vikram-Betaal case offers a direction for the court to take to resolve these disputes. To achieve the kinds of cultural outcomes we may consider appropriate we should coherently argue that infringement actions in Indian law in such cases should be of narrow scope and protect TV scripts only in its expressive details. Moreover this will put Indian law in line with the decisions of courts in similar cases in England and New Zealand. Best Sudhir ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:21 AM Subject: [Commons-Law] Gee, thanks Barbara > > > > Hi All > > Opening up an area for inter disciplinary discussion and would like some of the film theorists and lawyers on the list to start a dialogue ....everyone is probably aware of the recent controversy of Barbara taylor Bradford getting an injunction against Karishma-The serial, on for allegedly copying her work "A woman of substance". Her site for instance carries a story called "Barbara Fights Piracy In India" (http://www.barbarataylorbradford.com/whatsnew.htm) > > I am including some press clippiongs of the story for those who have not followed the story. > > My question for discussion is this: This is increasingly going to be an ara of contention; Hollywood claiming that various film industries across the world are 'copying' their ideas/ stories or whatever you want to call it. > > 1. What ar the implications of the idea-expression divide when it is applied to the 'cultural copy' (See Veena Das's article in May Seminar issue) > > 2. How do we interpret R G Anand v. Deluxe Films and in its interpretation of the idea expression dichotomy, does it not implicitly recognise the idea oif a 'cultural copy' (Relevant extracts fo decision provided below) > > > Lawrence > > > > What are some of the implications of such a trend, Is it possible that the global entertainment lobbby willpsuh for amendment > > http://www.barbarataylorbradford.com/whatsnew.htm > > > Barbara Fights Piracy In India > Having learned that a major TV network in India had blatantly plagiarized 'A Woman of Substance' for a prime-time television series, Barbara recently flew to Calcutta and obtained a legal injunction against the Sahara Network from airing Karishma: Miracle of Destiny. On Tuesday, May 13th, Barbara held a series of press interviews with the British media to declare her war against copyright infringement. Says Barbara, "I am truly appalled and distraught to have learned that a leading television network would go to the lengths of undertaking such a major project without first seeking consent from the creator. I have seen the television promotions and read the newspaper articles, in which my involvement in this project is discussed and implied, yet I have never once been approached for my input, or authorization. As a council member of the Author's Guild of America and an active member of the Screen Writers Guild of America, I am determined to protect not only my rights, but the > rights of all published authors worldwide. Such piracy, blatant, or otherwise should never be tolerated in any country." > > > > > > Experts opine on Karishma controversy > > By: Lina Choudhury-Mahajan > May 16, 2003 > > > > Last week, Barbara Taylor Bradford sued Sahara TV over scriptwriter Sachin Bhowmik's adaptation of her novel A Woman of Substance for the serial Karishma - The Miracle of Destiny. > The serial, which was to air on May 12, appeared to have stalled over the weekend, but a last-minute order from the Kolkata High Court cleared the decks for it to be aired on May 12. > Then the Supreme Court stayed the order of the High Court. The serial has been off air since then. > The incident has left in its wake speculation galore about 'inspiration' Bollywood ishtyle. > > > Barbara Taylor > > > What's the legal position? > Legally, a person can be sued for violating copyrights, which, according to lawyers, translates to infringing upon someone's rights by duplicating and selling the original material. > "Adding or editing portions from the original script does not vindicate a person. He can still be taken to court," says a Bandra-based lawyer, adding that if a scriptwriter or filmmaker were to go about using the copyrights legally, he would have to pay royalty. > "The filmmaker would have to write to the author, seeking permission to use his idea. > This would have to be a legally proofread document and the royalty could go into crores, which is why many filmmakers claim they were 'inspired'," he says. > "As far as the Sahara case goes, the fight will be for civil damages and for infringement of copyright," adds the lawyer. > "Under civil damages, the maximum penalty varies (it depends on what amount the complainant is asking for) and under infringement of copyright, the offender can be arrested." > lina at mid-day.com > Inspired, lifted and just copied > Reservoir Dogs - Kaante > Pretty Woman - Sadak > West Side Story - Josh > I Know What You Did Last Summer - Kucch To Hai > Bodyguard - Angrakshak > Cape Fear - Darr > The Parent Trap - Kuch Khatti Kuch Meethi > Bangkok Hilton - Gumraah > Eye For An Eye - Dushman > My Best Friend's Wedding - Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi > Karishma update > > > > "The Kolkata court has appointed a special officer to make an inventory of the alleged infringed material including outline, script, master tape, CD, VCD and screenplay of the serial," says Akashdeep, creative director of the serial. > How can you protect your copyrighted material? > . If a person finds that his copyright has been infringed upon, he needs to file a complaint either at a police station, the Esplanade Court or in a local court. > . The police will then investigate the matter under CRPC (Criminal Procedure Court) order 1563, which gives them power to investigate the case. > . What will strengthen the case is proof of the duplication - for example, a VCD of the movie, etc. The case can be filed under sections of the Indian Copyrights Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). > > 'Lifting ideas has become a trend' > Anurag Kashyap > Writer and director > "It's become a trend today to lift ideas from all over and develop them We have weak copyright laws in our country and no intellectual property rights (IPR) to protect the interests of writers. > Everyone is making films 'inspired' by others." > Parvati Balagopalan > Director > "This case should definitely go to court and get resolved if it is a copyright problem. Abroad the laws for such infringement are very strict - they wouldn't accept a writer's work without a contract and they wouldn't take such risks. > The truth is that it is our indigenous programmes do really well, for example, Antakshari, so people need to realise that one can do successful programmes without ripping off someone else > > > > > 4 MAY 2003 > Barbara Taylor Bradford has come out swinging after an Indian TV station defied courts and screened a series that she says was based on her top-selling novel A Woman Of Substance without her permission. > After a fan e-mailed her about a 260-episode Indian series called Karishma: The Miracles Of Destiny - the £37-million project seemed to have a plot suspiciously similar to Barbara's rags-to-riches novel - the author flew to Calcutta to investigate. > While Barbara succeeded in getting an injunction from the city's High Court to stop the broadcast, Hindi network Sahara TV screened the first instalment anyway on Monday. > Speaking from her "first ever" press conference in London, the writer remained defiant. "You can clothe it in these wonderful expressions like infringement of copyright," she said, "but where I come from in the North of England it is called a much simpler word - stealing. And I'm not going to let anybody steal anything from me." She added: "It is intellectual rape. and we are going to stop it." > The producer of the Bollywood programme - the costliest in Indian history - apparently publicly admitted to being influenced by three of Barbara's novels. Saying the tales had been "Indianised", he reportedly said: Saying the tales had been "Indianised", he reportedly said: "I don't want to take a chance with a new script." > > > > Extracts from R G Anand > > > R.G.Anand v. M/S Deluxe Films & others > > > The plaintiff wrote a play entitled 'Hum Hindustani'. > > Encouraged by the success and popularity of the aforesaid play, the plaintiff tried to consider the possibility of filming it. In November, 1954 the plaintiff received a letter dated 19th November, 1954 from the second defendant Mr Mohan Sehgal wherein the defendant informed the plaintiff that he was supplied with a synopsis of the play . > > The plaintiff's case, however, is that some time about January, 1955 the second and the third defendants came to Delhi,discussed the script and the second defendant did not make any clear commitment but promised the plaintiff that he would inform him about his re-action after reaching Bombay. Thereafter the plaintiff heard nothing from the defendant. Sometime in May, 1955 the second defendant announced the production of a motion picture entitled, 'New Delhi'. The plaintiff was informed by an artist in the plaintiff's play, who happened to see the picture in bombay, that the plaintiff's play 'Hum Hindustani' and the picture 'New Delhi' were similar. > > > > The picture was released in Delhi in Sept, 1956 and the plaintiff read some comments in the papers which gave the impression that the picture was very much like the play 'Hum Hindustani' written by the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself saw the picture on 9th Sept, 1956 and he found that the film was entirely based upon the said play and was therefore, convinced that the defendant after having heard the play narrated to him by the plaintiff dishonestly imitated the same in his film and thus committed an act of piracy so as to result in violation of the copyright of the plaintiff. > > > > FAZAL ALI, J :"The main theme of the play is provincialism and the prejudice of persons belonging to one State against persons belonging to other States. > > Analysing therefore the essential features of the play the position is as follows:- > > That the central idea of the play is based on provincialism and parochialism. > > The evils of provincialism are illustrated by the cordial relations of the two families being marred because of an apprehended marriage tie which according to both the families was not possible where they belonged to different States. > > That the Madrasi boy Amni is a coward and in spite of his profound love for Chander he does not muster sufficient courage to talk the matter out with his parents. > > That in sheer desperation while the parents of the families are trying to arrange a match for the couple belonging to the same State Amni and Chander enter into a suicidal pact and write letters to their parents intimating their intention. > > It was only after the letters are perused by the parents that they realize the horror or parochialism and are repentant for having acted so foolishly. > > That after this realization comes the married couple Amni and Chander appear before the parents and thus all is well that ends well. > > As they play was read to us by the appellant we find that it was very exquisitely presented and the plot was developed with very great skill. It must be noted however that the author in writing out the play has concentrated only on one aspect of provincialism namely whether there can be a marriage between the persons belonging to one State with those belonging to other States. This is the only aspect of provincialism which has been stressed in the play. The play does not touch any other aspect nor does it contain anything to throw light on the evils of society or that of dowry etc. We have mentioned these facts particularly because the film revolves around not only the aspect of marriage but other aspects also which are given the same importance as the problem of marriage. > > Analyzing the story of the film it would appear that it portrays three main themes:(1) Two aspects of provincialism viz. the role of provincialism in regard to marriage and in regard to renting out accommodation (2) Evils of a caste ridden society, and (3) the evils of dowry. So far as the last two aspects are concerned they do not figure at all in the play written by the plaintiff/appellant. A close perusal of the script of the film clearly shows that all the three aspects mentioned above are integral parts of the story and it is very difficult to divorce one from the other without affecting the beauty and the continuity of the script of the film. Further, it would appear that the treatment of the story of the film is in many respects different from the story contained in the play. > > > > Before the actual stage play, the producer gives a narrative. He states that although we describe ourselves as 'Hindustani' we are not really Hindustani. He questions the audience as to what they are and various voices are heard. To say in their own provincial language that they are Punjabis, Bengalis, Gujaratis, Marathis, Madrasis, Sindhis, etc. In the said film the same idea is conveyed and the hero of the picture is shown searching for a house in New Delhi and wherever he goes he is confronted by a landlord who describes himself not as Hindustani but as a Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Madrasi or Sindhi. > > Both the said play and the said film deal with the subject of Provincialism. > > Both the said play and the said film evolve drama around the lives of two families, one a Punjabi and the other a Madrasi family. > > In both the said play and the said film the name of the Madrasi father if Subramanyam. > > Both the said play and the said film have their locale in New Delhi. > > Both the said play and the said film show cordiality of relations between the two families. > > Both the said play and the said film show the disruption of cordial relations as soon as the head of the families discover the existence of a love affair between their children. > > In both the said play and the said film, both the parents warn their respective children not to have anything to do with each other or pain of corporal punishment. > > The entire dialogue in both the said play and the said film before and after the disruption is based upon the superiority of the inhabitants of one Province over the inhabitants of the others. > > In both the said play and the said film the girl is shown to be found of music and dancing. > > In both the said play and the said film the hero is shown as a coward to the extent that he has not the courage to go to his parent persuade them to permit him to marry a girl hailing from another Province. > > Both in the said play and in the said film, when the parents of the girl are discussing marrying her off to somebody the girl is listening to the dialogue from behind a curtain. Thereafter the girl runs to the boy and explains the situation to him. > > In both the said play and the said film, the girl writes a letter of suicide. > > In the said play reconciliation takes place when the children of the two families who were in love go out to commit suicide by drowning etc, whereas in the said film it is only the daughter who goes out to commit suicide by drowning herself in the Jamuna. > > In the said play the children are stopped from committing suicide by an Astrologer whereas in the said film the girl stopped from committing suicide by a friend of the family. > > In the said play reconciliation between the two families takes place only after they have experienced the shock of their children committing suicide on account of their provincial feelings whereas in the film, the father of the girl realized his mistake after experiencing the shock of his daughter committing suicide. > > In both the said play and the said film, stress is laid on the fact that although India is one country, yet there is an acute feeling of provincialism between persons hailing from its various States even though they work together and live as neighbors. > > > > Both in the said play and in the said film, even the dialogue centers around the same subject of provincialism. > > After having gone through the script of the play and the film we are inclined to agree with the opinion of the Courts below. We have already pointed out that mere similarities by themselves are not sufficient to raise an inference of colorable imitation. On the other hand, there are quite a number of dissimilarities also, for instance: > > > > In the play provincialism comes on the surface only when the question of marriage of Amni with Chander crops up but in the picture it is the starting point of the story when Anand goes around from door to door in search of accommodation but is refused the same because he does not belong to the Sate from which the landlord hails, as a result thereof Anand has to masquerade himself as a Madrasi. This would therefore show that the treatment of the subject of provincialism in the film is quite different from that in the play and is actually a new theme which is not developed or stressed in the p lay. > > > > Similarly, in the play, the two families are fully aware of the identity of each other whereas in the film they are not and in fact it is only when the dance performance of Janki and Anand is staged that the identity of the two families is disclosed which forms one of the important climax of the film. Thus, the idea of provincialism itself is presented in a manner or form quite different from that adopted in the play. > > > > In the firm there is no suicidal pact between the lovers but only a suicide note is left by Janki whereas in the play both the lovers decide to end their lives add enter into a suicidal to end their lives and enter into a suicidal pact and leave suicide note to this effect. Furthermore, while in the play Amni and Chander get married and then appear before the parents in the picture the story takes a completely different turn with the intervention of Sadhu Ram who does not allow Janki to commit suicide but keeps her with him disguised as his niece and the final climax is reached in the last scene when Janki's real identity is disclosed and Subramaniam also finds out that his daughter is alive. > > > > The story in the play revolves around only two families, namely, the Punjabi and the Madrasi families, but in the film there are three important families, namely, the Punjabi family, the Madrasi family and the Bengaii family and very great stress is down in the film. On the role played by Ashok Banerjee of the Bengaii family who makes a supreme sacrifice at the end which turns the tide and brings about a complete revolution in the mind and ideology of Daulat Ram. > > > > The film depicts the evil of caste-ridden society and exposes the hollowness of such a society when in spite of repeated requests no member of the brotherhood of Daulat Ram comes to his rescue and ultimately it is left to Ashok Banerjee to retrieve the situation. This aspect of the matter is completely absent in the play. > > > > The film depicts another important social evil, namely, the evils of dowry which also appears to be the climax of the story of the film and the horrors of dowry are exhibited and demonstrated in a very practical and forceful fashion. The play however does not deal with this aspect at all. The aspects mentioned above which are absent from the play are not mere surplusages or embellishments in the story of the film but are important and substantial parts of the story. > > > > The effect of the dissimilarities pointed out above clearly go to show that they far outweigh the effect of the similarities mentioned in para 9 of the plaint set out above. Moreover, even if we examine the similarities mentioned by the plaintiff they are trifling and trivial and touch insignificant points and do not appear to be of a substantial nature. The mere fact that the name of the Madrasi father was Subramaniam in both the film and the play is hardly of any significance because the name of a particular person cannot be the subject-matter of copyright because these are common names............... > > > > applying various tests laid down to determine whether in a particular case there has been a violation of the copyright we are of the opinion that the film produced by the defendants cannot be said to be a substantial or material copy of the play written by the plaintiff. We also find that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation on the screen is quite different from the one written by the plaintiff at the stage. We are also satisfied that after seeing the play and the film no prudent person can get an impression that the film appears to be a copy of the original play nor is there anything to show that the film is a substantial and material copy of the play. At the most the central idea of the play, namely, provincialism is undoubtedly the subject matter of the film along with other ideas also but it is well settled that a mere idea cannot be the subject-matter of copyright. Thus, the present case does not fulfil the conditions laid down for holding that th > e defendants have made a colorable imitation of the play. > > > > On a close and careful comparison of the play and the picture but for the central idea (provincialism which is not protected by copyright), from scene to scene, situation to situation, in climax to anti-climax, pathos, bathos, in texture and treatment and purport and presentation, the picture is materially different from the play. > > > > > > Pathak J Decision in the R.G. Anand Case > > > > Pathak, J.: " But on the other hand, the story portrayed by the film travels beyond the plot delineated in the play. In the play, the theme of provincial prochailism is illustrated only in the opposition to a relationship by marriage between two families hailing from different parts of the country. In the film the themes is also illustrated by the hostile attitude of proprietors of lodging accommodation towards prospective lodgers who do not belong to the same provincial community. The plot then extends to the evils of the dowry system, which is a theme independent of provincial parochialism. There are still other themes embraced within the plot of the film. Nonetheless, the question can arise whether there is an infringement of copyright even though the essential features of teh play can be said to correspond to a part only of the plot of the film. This can arise even where changes are effected while planning the film so that certain immaterial features in the film differ fr > om wht is seen in the stage play. The relative position in which the principal actors stand may be exchanged or extended, and embellishments may be introduced in the attempt to show that the plot in the film is entirely original and bears no resemblance whatever to the stage play. All such matters fall for consideration in relation to the question whether the relevant part of the plot in the film is merely a colourable imitation of the essential structure of the stage play. If the treatment of the theme in the stage play has been made the basis of one of the themes in the film story and the essential structure of the treatment is clearly and distinclty identifiable in themes embraced within the plot of the film in order to decide whether infringement has been established. In the attempt to show that he is not guilty of infringement of copyright, it is always possible for a person intending to take advantage of the intellectual effort and labours within the scope of the earli > er product, and in the common area covered by the two productions to introduce changes in order to disguise the attempt at plagiarism." > > > > The movie is obviously much larger in scope than theplay. But plagiarising the essential structure and expression in the play ...shouldn't it amount ot infringement ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at mail.sarai.net > http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > From lawrenceliang at vsnl.net Wed May 21 11:50:59 2003 From: lawrenceliang at vsnl.net (lawrenceliang at vsnl.net) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:50:59 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Updates on Unix Code Message-ID: <20030521062059.68ACF114A98@webmail.vsnl.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030521/b510fd25/attachment.pl From jaynakothari at hotmail.com Wed May 21 15:35:20 2003 From: jaynakothari at hotmail.com (jayna kothari) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:35:20 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] patent on SARS virus Message-ID: Dear all, the race to patent the SARS virus and its genetic material, by several universities and research organisations around the world is on...some of the recent news items on this make interesting reading, and also rekindles criticism of intellectual property laws that allow people to claim intellectual property rights on living things. See: http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap050603b.html Jayna _________________________________________________________________ Bridge gaps. Reconnect with old friends. http://www.batchmates.com/msn.asp On batchmates.com From sunil at mahiti.org Thu May 22 17:24:45 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: 22 May 2003 17:24:45 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Updates on Unix Code In-Reply-To: <20030521062059.68ACF114A98@webmail.vsnl.com> References: <20030521062059.68ACF114A98@webmail.vsnl.com> Message-ID: <1053604485.774.41.camel@sunil> Some more links http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/05/18/2214204.shtml?tid=3 On May 12, 2003, SCO tried to break all ties with its Linux past and declared war on the entire Linux community. Specifically, underneath the legal language, SCO claims Linux includes Unix code stolen, or directly developed, from their SCO Unix code. "Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user." Therefore, "Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights." http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/05/17/1238221.shtml?tid=23 Yes, these people are using their 'Hey SCO, sue me' petition to badger poor, hapless SCO. Worse, they're inviting you to join them. If you are the kind of person who enjoys tormenting companies that seem bent on destroying Linux, you may want to sign this petition yourself. Who knows? Maybe you'll get lucky and SCO will actually sue you for using Linux. http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/05/07/1022221&mode=thread&tid=19 http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html In a recent press release, SCO suggests that the Linux community may be responsible for the denial-of-service attack on its servers that occurred on Friday, May 2nd. This is a baseless slur, unsupported by facts.Anyone tempted to take it seriously should note that neither the Linux community nor the wider open-source community of which it is part has any past record of such behavior. If we fought our battles in those terms, Windows is a sufficiently vulnerable target that we would have severely hammered certain much larger adversaries years ago. News accounts suggest that the machines subverted into performing the attack were Windows boxes. It would be more reasonable to suppose that the attack was the work not of anyone in the Linux community but of a Windows-based cracker-underground gang that is sympathetic to us and has decided to fight for the "good guys". If that's so, we reject such misguided assistance. Any pro-Linux crackers out there should stand down *now* and refrain from any such offensives in the future. We cannot accept such help' and remain the good guys. Thanks, Sunil -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw Shaw From vineeth at ibioinformatics.org Thu May 22 05:48:01 2003 From: vineeth at ibioinformatics.org (Vineeth S) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 00:18:01 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] updates on the sco (unix) issue Message-ID: <200305220018.AA87163182@ibioinformatics.org> hi all, the open source initiative (osi) has released a draft version of its position paper on the sco-vs-ibm suit. very elegantly methodically put forth by eric s raymond(he of the 'the cathedral and the bazaar'). This document is an evolving work in progress. SCO's complaint against IBM disparaged the work of thousands of individual open-source contributors. These contributors feel themselves personally and professionally wronged by SCO's unfounded allegations. In the tradition of the open-source movement, hundreds of individuals are now sending in their patches to help inform and evolve the OSI's position. On behalf of Unix developers over the last thirty-five years, of today's Linux and open-source developers, and of all Internet users everywhere, we therefore express these hopes with respect to court findings: * To find against SCO in its complaint against IBM, or for IBM on any motion for dismissal or summary judgment. * To ground the finding in terms which will foreclose any future claims by SCO of proprietary control over technologies contributed to Linux. * To confirm that SCO cannot re-litigate the USL/Novell-vs.-BSD action by stealth, and thus that SCO's ownership of the ancestral Bell Labs source code gives it no authority or proprietary entitlement over the works of the open-source community and Unix developers at large. We further suggest that SCO's complaint is knowingly deceptive to a degree that recommends sanctions under the Utah and Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure. OSI is not requesting any more general finding on broad issues of intellectual property in software, even supposing that were within the purview of the court. We feel the facts of Unix history are sufficiently compelling and particular that the court would be justified in ruling as we recommend without attempting to challenge and re-construct the entire legal theory of software intellectual property. you can find the entire document at : http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html regards vineeth vineeth developer institute of bioinformatics bangalore india ================================================== infinity cannot conquer the impossible ================================================== From thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com Sun May 25 13:56:43 2003 From: thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com (thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 13:56:43 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Article sent from The Hindu Message-ID: <200305250826.h4P8QhKj026122@web1.hinduonnet.com> This example may establish a new way of thinking about technology and development! Not surprisingly this computer shuns proprietary software. Sudhir ============================================================= This article has been sent to you by Sudhir ( sudhir75 at hotmail.com ) ============================================================= Source: The Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/05/25/stories/2003052503111100.htm) National    Pricing of personal computers: lessons for India from Thailand By Anand Parthasarathy Bangalore May 24. "Everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it" — American humorist Mark Twain's wry comment about the weather might well apply to decade-long efforts in this country and elsewhere to deliver a truly `People's PC'. Finally, Thailand has done it — and as surging crowds in Bangkok queuing to book the government-sponsored personal computers proved — a key inflection point in the price-performance matrix has been achieved. In what will be a matter of great interest to lay users as well as Indian hardware and policy leaders, the Thai Ministry of Information and Communication technology (ICT) has achieved something of a global first: It has persuaded a multinational computer player, Hewlett Packard, to create a compellingly priced notebook PC running local language versions of the `open systems' Linux software. The HP-made `Sudsakorn' notebook will sell for Thai baht 19,500 (the equivalent of Rs. 22,000). For this money buyers will get a portable PC built around a Via 800 MHz chip; 128 megabytes of RAM; a 20 gigabyte hard disk; a 10 inch LCD screen and an internal modem. The model with a CD drive costs the equivalent of Rs 27,500. Both versions come pre-loaded with Thai language versions of the open operating system, Linux TLE 5.0, as well as a business suite, Office TLE 1.02. This is said to be the first notebook offered by a leading international PC maker, preloaded with a Linux software. The cheapest notebooks sold in India start at around Rs 60,000. Even more popular with Thai buyers since bookings began on May 9 has been the `Sinsamut' desktop PC based on a 1 GHz Intel Celeron chip, with 128 MB RAM, a floppy drive; 52x CD drive, 20 GB of hard disk, a 15 inch monitor as well as 200 watt speakers and a modem or ethernet card. At 10,900 baht (Rs. 12,000) over 20,000 PCs were booked on the opening day and the Thai ICT Ministry is hopeful of quickly selling 1 million PCs. The Linux PCs have been made to government specification by half a dozen local assemblers — and the PC buyers have the right to acquire a standard printer from HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark for the equivalent of Rs. 1800. As a predictable fallout, the launch of the official Thai models has seen slightly better-spec models from local vendors being offered at prices at least a third below previous levels. Prices of state-of- the-art Pentium 4/1.8 GHz- based PCs with monitor quickly fell to around 19,000 baht (Rs. 21,000) while those with AMD's Athlon under the hood could be had for the equivalent of Rs. 15,000. Observers say the Thai Government was able to persuade HP to join in the notebook venture by offering to take over the warranty and servicing responsibilities. They also think Dell may shortly respond to the Thai invitation to come up with a comparably priced Linux notebook. The matter of interest to the Indian industry is that the price points achieved by Thailand are precisely those that were touted for long as what the Indian consumer needed for an affordable PC. But while the Central Government's much touted "IT For All'' policy is already half way through its 10-year span, there has been virtually no progress towards the so-called `Janatha PC'. On the one hand there has been no official will to offer serious fiscal incentives to the hardware industry here; and, on the other, little success in persuading the procession of high profile IT visitors to this country in recent years — Microsoft's Bill Gates, HP's Carly Fiorina, Dell's Michael Dell, Sun's Scott McNealy or Intel's Craig Barrett — to translate pious statements about bridging the digital divide into pricing policies or product developments specific to this country. The question that the Indian consumer will now legitimately ask is: If Thailand can do it, why not India? Copyright: 1995 - 2002 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the consent of The Hindu