Below goes my reply:
On 29/08/06, Anivar Aravind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every law uses a standard definition to confine the scope of the etymological meaning of a word within the purview of the law. Thus, you are perfectly right in that by replying to your email, I am broadcasting my opinions on this regard. But, law can not deal with all the connotations of a word, so it is right to define broadcasting in the narrow sense of the term.
Please see my above response on the definition.
The issue of infringment of copyright provisions is somehow treated within the ambit of copyright laws. Performance through karaoke in households or functions most possibly does not violate copyright laws, because it is artistically transforming the creation of other's musical talent through the singer's own voice. I dont know the exact logic behind this, however had karaoke violated any coyright laws, then all remixes being aired through TV and radio have also violated it.
The biggest problem with the draft broadcast bill, is its definition
of broadcasting:
> "Broadcasting" means assembling and programming any form of communication content like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds, and either placing it in electronic form on electro-magnetic waves on specified frequencies and transmitting it through space or cables to make it continuously available on the carrier waves, or continuously streaming it in digital data form on the computer networks, so as to be accessible to single or multiple users through receiving devices either directly or indirectly; and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions;
Every law uses a standard definition to confine the scope of the etymological meaning of a word within the purview of the law. Thus, you are perfectly right in that by replying to your email, I am broadcasting my opinions on this regard. But, law can not deal with all the connotations of a word, so it is right to define broadcasting in the narrow sense of the term.
It doesn't matter if it is one-to-one, spoken or written: if it has
been transmitted electronically, it constitutes broadcasting. This
means, you must have a license, and not say anything on the phone that
Prasar Bharati wouldn't broadcast on All India Radio. Even the use of
a telephone comes under the definition, because communication to a
single person is still broadcasting. Text, audio and video blogs, even
newspapers on the Internet come under the ambit — why, email lists
too, so would the members of india-gii like to write to the I&B
ministry, asking it to rework the definition of broadcasting, so that
we are not threatened?
Please see my above response on the definition.
another key issue in determining what constitutes broadcasting should
be: what is the minimum power below which it does not qualify as
broadcasting? Otherwise, your PC is regulated as well, for the
monitor emits radiation. Karaoke using cordless microphones would be
banned as well, because you would be broadcasting copyright material
without permission.
The issue of infringment of copyright provisions is somehow treated within the ambit of copyright laws. Performance through karaoke in households or functions most possibly does not violate copyright laws, because it is artistically transforming the creation of other's musical talent through the singer's own voice. I dont know the exact logic behind this, however had karaoke violated any coyright laws, then all remixes being aired through TV and radio have also violated it.
I agree with your rest of the opinion. Though there is a need for collective submission of the comments to the Ministry as they need advice and guidance from us.
Regards
Atanu
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala run by
Global Alternate Information Applications (GAIA)
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
