Catch your step! It won't stop for you!

Last evening after a movie, I was on my way out of the cinema and took the escalator. In front of me, there was a young mommy and her toddler daughter. I was expecting the little girl (who couldn't have been more than 3 years old) to fumble with her steps onto the escalator, but instead, she just hopped onto it without a thought. Images of the numerous scenes in escalators in Indian malls came to mind, teenage daughters urging her mother to take the first step. And the mother unsteadily, fearfully, trying hard to make the first step in time.

It got me thinking about the growing ease at which kids being born into this world are socialized into a technology filled existance and the increasing divide that technology is creating in our society. In a sense, they are “cultural pioneers” inventing a whole new world as they go along.
Especially, in terms of their exposure to a mobile connectivity and social networks as a part of their early years of development, leads them to experience a new world of hypersocialization, instantaneous access, and collaborative intelligence that has never been experienced before by previous generations.

But new technology and children is has always been a site of inter-generational tension.(Recall the debates about violence in Tom & Jerry shows and computer games?) On one hand, children are viewed as vulnerable, innocent and undergoing fragile developmental phases. On the other, they are are seen as innovative users of the internet and other new technologies.

Of course the new media brings with it a new set of fears- and justifiably so. In fact, The Times of India's Crest edition carried an article last week entitled a “The end of innocence” listing the risks and threats to a child's innocence and safety that the internet brings- cyberbullying, access to pornographic content and other “age inappropriate” information.

Yet at the same time, our fears should not prevent them from gaining the benefits of a globally connected informaton society.

So rather than blanket rejections of a “Scary new world” or total acceptance of the role of technology and the internet to be able to spur new innovations among children, thought must be given to the age appropriate technology and access to kids. A child's greatest influences till the age of 15, are their school environment, peer group and most importantly their parents.

And with who does this responsibility lie? Regulating age appropriate access requires firstly an understanding of where kids gain access, how the scope of difference in this access works, and finally, what the risks of exposure are. After all, only through learning from our children and their use of technology can we understand the trends and direction of the knowledge society of tomorrow....

The author is a social media researcher and technology anthropologist who lives her life on the web

Listened to any good books recently?

“I read the newspaper, had lunch, played golf, tried to catch up on some reading with one of those Dickens videos.”

- Julian Barnes, A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters

An audiobook is a recording of an oral reading of a book. It is usually abridged, although titles are recorded in their full-length form for audiobook aficionados who call themselves ‘tapeworms’ as opposed to ‘bookworms’. In America and England, the audiobook market is on the upswing. The Audio Publishers Association was created in 1986 to gather statistics pertaining to this industry. It informs us that as of December 2004, the industry was worth $800 million.

The habit of “listening” to books is yet to gain traction in India. However, many South Asian writers, including Salman Rushdie, Jhumpa Lahiri, and V.S. Naipaul, have audio renditions of their books out in the market. Many audiobooks feature celebrities as narrators in order to aggrandize the product.

Audiobook technology has advanced very rapidly. Tapes are still used, but CDs, MP3s, and the iPod are waiting to take over completely. Many countries have audiobook libraries. The APA states that people above 45 years of age constitute the key market, but clearly, other cohorts are moving into the picture.

At this juncture, we need to pose an audacious question, but one that needs to be asked, given the fact that the reading habit could be affected by this ineluctable trend. Why would anyone want to listen to books? Aren’t books meant to be read? Fans of the audiobook argue that one of the best uses of an audiobook is the ability to listen to it when we are commuting, washing the dishes, or walking in the park. People do not have time to read books otherwise and in this way, they seem to complete more books in a shorter span of time.

It is important to remember that the number of books consumed in a week is unimportant when compared to the quality of the experience that a book affords us, when we are free to mull over passages that need to be returned to and reread. Reading is more complex, personal, and enjoyable than just appreciating the element of storytelling inherent in the writing. It is an experience that needs to be sought and cherished. Roundabout ways, hardly measuring up to the original, cannot be sought in order cram books into tightly-packed days.

Added to this, many books have pictures, symbols, or puzzles that the reader can pause to think over, or turn back to the earlier parts of the book for clues. Details can enrich writing, and audiobooks do not do justice to our ability to savour certain authors’ assiduous research and craft.

On reading a book, we have so many visceral impressions about a particular character, the narrative, or the very tone and 'voice' of the writing, as it were. These elements constitute the written work’s (not the writer’s) personality, and in an audiobook, these elements simply cannot come through.

Publishers of audiobooks have declared that listening to audiobooks has improved general literacy, but written composition and spelling are aspects that are sadly overlooked, not to mention the fact that writing incites a natural flair for writing in many students.

There is no doubt that for the visually impaired, an audiobook is extremely useful, and for this purpose, their production should be encouraged. However, they are not to be favoured over books.

On the other hand, the audiobook can be mined for different other benefits, the foremost being the idea of “written for audio” books or dramatizations. Sixty-two years ago, George Orwell wrote about the need to use the radio to popularize poetry. Today, audio dramatizations (also available in audiobook format) use multiple performers, little or no narration, music, and sound effects. The BBC also has a long history of radio dramas and its 13-hour adaptation of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ features a formidable cast, a beautiful score, and well-produced sound effects.

As children, our parents would have undoubtedly read books to us. This is often seen as a glorious way to share a book together, but nothing can come close to living vicariously, to the feeling of being in control of one’s own book and to having it tailor-made to suit one’s fancy. Individual impressions are like palimpsests and they are individual treasures. Let’s face it: “listening” to ‘The Hobbit’ when camping out in the woods doesn’t quite hack it.

First published in Deccan Herald, April 29th, 2007.

Google & the Great Firewall of China

Information technology impact in this era is epitomized by the Google – China controversy; hardly viewed as a private dispute between a corporation and a domestic regulatory body, not only is it attracting considerable eye-balls in the digital space but has resulted in even President Obama getting involved in the talks with the Chinese Govt.

On a cold winter day in December, numerous illegal attempts to access the Gmail accounts of various Chinese Human Rights activists critical of the Chinese Govt, were discovered. Google, having identified these “highly sophisticated and targeted attacks,” as originating from China reacted by halting the censorship of its Chinese version search engine (www.google.cn) and is considering shutting down operations in China. The Chinese Govt. has denied Govt involvement in the attacks arguing that: a. no evidence has been uncovered demonstrating Govt. links to the attacks; and b. its online restrictions are lawful and any attempts by the US to insist upon amendments to Chinese internet regulation will amount to “information imperialism.”

Moving from this international diplomatic brouhaha and posturing – what is the controversy really about? How is an internet user’s ability to read (access information) and write or otherwise participate in online conversations affected? In other words what would we not be able to do if we were in China instead of in a Wi-Fi Univ classroom in Bangalore or café in Pune?

Before www.google.cn decided to stop censoring their results, a query on any subject from the list (as expanded and monitored constantly) chosen by the Chinese Government would yield the following reply in Mandarin “in accordance with local laws, regulations and policies, part of the search result is not shown.” In other words, China permits internet use for commerce but considers internet control as a critical matter of state security and heavily censors content it deems pornographic, anti-social or politically subversive. For ensuring these goals, it goes so far as to block Twitter, Facebook and several social networking sites, popular video-sharing sites like YouTube and international news agencies.

A Chinese person or someone geographically located in China would not only (a) be able to read any information or post any comment on anything deemed as critical or remotely sensitive by the Chinese Govt; but (b) also not be able to post or access anything on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/Flickr; to achieve this goal of limiting criticism, wholesale access to these and other such sites that facilitate online conversations has been prevented.

In practice, any information that puts the government in bad light is censored. The Chinese Govt. implements its internet censorship policy through most sophisticated technologies, including various regulations, punishment and surveillance techniques. In fact, utilizing these technologies, numerous journalists and ‘cyber-dissidents’ have been identified and arrested.

The question, is China entitled to deploy such wholesale prohibitions (disproportionate to goals), requires the examination of internet regulation and exposes the ravines in legal cultures and consequently, life as we know in India (& other democracies) and China. China limits and rigidly controls Internet content through wide prohibitions under its internet regulatory law. “IISP (Internet Information Service Provider) shall not produce, reproduce, release or disseminate information that undermines social stability, the State’s policy towards religion and other information prohibited by the law or administrative regulations.” (Art. 15, State Council Order No. 292, Sep. 2000)

Neither the principle of censorship nor limiting grounds such as interest of national security is novel; in fact most countries, including India and US recognise such limiting grounds. Even India etc have censorship laws that prohibit child pornography etc. The stark difference however is that free speech is considered the general norm (& some exceptions, narrow limitations recognized.)

Or perhaps, this has been our wrong approach in this entire issue – attempting to tell China that we know ‘the right way.’ In fact, all signs indicate China hardening on its stance rather than moving to a more connected world; and potentially a lost opportunity. It is not being suggested that we turn a blind-eye to illegal hacking or to human rights activists being bullied; but utilize the advantage proffered by net neutrality to ease into a more connected future. Net Neutrality would offer China, for the first time, an unlimited opportunity to showcase Brand Governance China; People in China would be able to access websites/social networks (hitherto blocked) and others elsewhere would get an opportunity to hear authentic Chinese voices, over and above those few faces seen on limited broadcast/news media corp. tubes. I believe that the China should not focus as much on censorship (of the Internet or curbing access to websites) but rather have the opportunity to credibly refute ‘illicit’ or ‘potentially dangerous’ rumors.

The Golden Shield Project or the Great Firewall of China must be persuaded down. The internet provides for free flow and access of any kind of information from any part of the world. Don’t the Chinese deserve to participate in this story – to narrate their history, past & present as they see it and write the global narrative too? Don’t they have the right to question their government and us? Just because China has a Communist government, does that mean that they have the right to censor anything they please?

Such blanket censorship regulations violate freedom of speech and press (not by extension of Indian or American laws) but promised to citizens of the People’s Republic of China by Art.35 of its Constitution.

- The author is an aspiring IP lawyer and net aficionado currently completing the rites of passage, at Christ College of Law, Bangalore.

Two Sides of the Tech Coin

It was a warm, lazy morning. A perfect moment to listen to some music while sipping coffee, I felt. As I was adjusting the volume on the iPod dock, I heard a knock on the door. Humming the tune loudly enough to ignore the sound of repeated knocks, I opened the door. "You had asked me to come this morning, Sir. I do gardens ek dum perfect, Sir", he said with a bright smile. With displeasure and surprise I look at Gopal, even as I tried to recall the moment that I had met with him and asked him to come. He didn't wait for my words; he straight away walked toward the neglected garden.

After several minutes, I suddenly remembered that I had met him a week ago during a stroll. Gopal is into his seventies. He looks after five cows by the day and sleeps restfully at night. On occasion, he cleans the small garden at our home and accepts whatever is given in return. A content, simple, happy man. So when I met him that evening, I had asked him to come this morning to clean-up and spruce the garden. I was surprised that he had come by without any reminders from me. This man doesn't require netmeeting software or digital diaries or calendars, he doesn't carry any gadget. In an age when technology has permeated every sphere of human activity, this man's life has remained quite untouched.

I have known him for the past several years. There was not a single instance when he missed turning up at our home or at any other's at the appointed time.

He started tending to the garden when I heard a beep on my phone. I returned indoors and noticed an alert message. "Tan's book launch, 11am", it read. I quickly checked the time and realised that I would have to rush right away to make it. And if not for the alert, I wouldn't even have remembered my friend's book launch was scheduled for that day.

"How did I manage before I had a phone?" I wondered. For that matter, how did all of us? Absolutely fine, I suppose. It seems to be a rational choice, after all, to rely on secondary (external) memories when we have them. But how good is it when it happens at the cost of blunting our primary memory? Is it really a simple question of rational utility or complacency and lassitude?

While I quickly changed my clothes, wolfed down an idli and raced to my bike, Gopal was watering the plants.

At the book launch event, I scanned all the corridors in the store and even the surrounding bike-parking areas but couldn't find my friend Vivek. Tan was busy with the launch organisers as I waited anxiously for Vivek. "Hey, ver r u? waitng 4 u at odyssey. remembr Tan's book launch? Mk it fast", I sent him a message. The event was nearly ending but there was no word from Vivek yet. Call to his mobile proved futile as he wasn't picking up any calls. Shortly after, as Tan and I grabbed the last cookies and chatted as we made toward the store doors, Tan remarked, "Curious that Vivek didn't make it. I wondered what detained him." And we left it at that.

The weather that evening was pleasant and I went out for a stroll with my three-year-old nephew for company. As we ambled, he briefed me eagerly about all the new features of the toy car that he had seen at the mall the previous day. I asked him, "and what is the name of this super-duper car?" A sharp kid otherwise, he couldn't remember. However, being a true-blue Gen-Y kid, he solved it. "We will google it once we get back home", he suggested. "Sure, we will", I smiled.

Gopal was taking his cows back home. He halted beside us and briefed us on how he had cleaned the garden and what care must be taken to manage it. "I will come again after three days, Sir and water the plants thoroughly." Right then my phone rang. It was Vivek. "Sorry yaar! I totally forgot about the event! I slept through the day and just saw messages and missed calls from both of you. Man! I forgot to note it in my calendar", he explained. "No problemo. Tan was just curious, and am sure will understand. Anyway, speak to him", I assured him.

As Gopal bid adieu, my nephew looked forward to reaching home and googling, Vivek thought of ways to explain his lapse to Tan, and a colourful dusk beckoned quiet, I wondered, with amusement, how the comforts offered by technology affect our utilisation of the most marvellous faculty - memory.

--The author is an ardent bibliophile and masquerades as a techie during the day, like Peter Parker.

“Original script”“based upon a novel” – The Rs. 1.5 Billion Oxymoron?

‘3 Idiots’ the highest grossing Aamir Khan starring Indian movie has earned Rs. 1.5 billion ($ 70 million), and counting. The Chetan Bhagat-Hirani ‘original screenwriter’ turned into the proverbial storm in the tea-cup after both sides traded insults, revealed hurt feelings and expectation failure and then simmered down after the Producers threatened defamation action that they had fulfilled all their legal obligations by adhering to the contract signed with Bhagat.

All of this provoked the question – what were the rights, contract terms; if it had been all agreed, why was there heartburn? Story in short - Chetan Bhagat, the original author of ‘Five Point Someone’ had agreed to allow for his book to be adapted into a movie provided he a. received closing credits; b. approved the script, both of which apparently occurred. The 3 Idiots makers have argued that once they have fulfilled the contract terms (payment + above conditions), they have met all their legal obligations. #1 Is this the correct read of the law?

The Producers have claimed that most of the screenplay is different from the original book; and both sides have traded arguments on the extent of the differences/similarities. Producers arguing only 2-5% have been retained; and Bhagat arguing that 70% remains the same. The Producers have been listed 30 reasons for how 3i differs from the book – (http://www.vinodchopra.com/ click on ‘Whats New’ frame and then ‘Press Releases’).

#2 Is the extent of similarity and variance legally relevant in these circumstances – a legally agreed adaptation rather than illegal copying (copyright violation)?

The law of copyright provides Bhagat as the author with the right to prevent unauthorized copying of his work including adaptations. It is for this reason that the Producers contractually bought the movie adaptation rights from Bhagat and then, adapted the novel into a screenplay appropriate for making a film. The screenplay writers, Producers etc are of course entitled to separate copyrights in their expression/creative work aka the screenplay, movie etc. The extent of similarity and variation (whether 2% or 70% etc.) would have been legally relevant if it was either a situation of unauthorized copying – either the Producers making an adaptation without the author’s permission or the author also claiming copyright over the final screenplay/film. Neither of which is the case here; making #2 issue legally irrelevant. Adaptation means modifications and the creator of the adaptation would while separately entitled to a copyright in her output or creative work cannot simultaneously, argue that it is “original” and unrelated to the original novel.

It is somewhat disingenuous to list the differences and similarities between the two works when it is a legal adaptation. There is of course tremendous criticism about this pedantic approach even in infringement suits; however it is even less appropriate (obfuscating the issue) in legal adaptation situations because the adaptation IS based upon the first work, which is not being contested. In other words, if the two works were so different such that the second work (screenplay in this case) is unrelated and independent of the novel, what would be the necessity to buy the adaptation rights and acknowledge the film as ‘based upon the original book.’ In effect, it is like saying “Adapted from but yet Original” and unrelated to the first? Independent and original in relation to other screenplays, sure, but also in relation to the novel that it is an adaptation of?

The crux lies in the argument that it is “Original Screenplay” and simultaneously, an Adaptation based upon the novel, two mutually exclusive claims. In other words, Original, independent work would mean any similarities with the novel are merely co-incidental; but in this case, the deliberate similarities would be contractually required and permitted as it was a legal adaptation (fulfilling agreed contract terms)? Two wholly contradictory claims, a clear logical impossibility.

More significantly, the ink around the irrelevant and empty #2 claim has obfuscated the real and legal issue at hand (#1 above). An author continues to have ‘special rights’ to be acknowledged as the author and to ensure his work is not denigrated even after he assigns or sells the right to commercially exploit the work (s. 57 and see Paternity Rights, in Moral Rights/Droit Moral) This formed the basis for the terms included in the contract (a. and b. above)

Can author’s right to acknowledgment be reduced by contract? By law, the author’s right to be acknowledged (creator’s Paternity Right) remains with the author even after signing the contract with publishers, film-makers etc. In other words, an author may sell or transfer his right to commercially exploit the work which is separate from the paternity right (which the law does not allow to be sold or contracted away). In other words, the parties cannot by contract (private arrangements) modify the law (agree upon terms inimical to the law such as not acknowledging the creator of the work).

But in this case, the acknowledgment terms at issue were in the film or the creative work of the Producers. Bhagat’s authorship rights remain sacrosanct and irreducible in his creative work, the novel; (yielding a stronger legal case if it involved claims against the book publishers for acknowledgment in the novel.) However, the acknowledgment in this case was involved in the film, another person’s creative work (and another’s copyright). Since the film stemmed from the contractual transfer of the adaptation rights, it would arguably be governed by adaptation provisions (and contract terms) rather than falling within the inalienable legal protections (or moral right provisions).

In other words, the special acknowledgment status provided to creators by law is reserved to their work (and does not blanket include others’ work, even if related). The screenplay writer, filmmaker etc would each have supreme rights in their product. This distinction would only be fair and required; (else it will chill follow on creative work and create excessive monopolies). Second, by ensuring adaptation rights can only be bought from original authors, the copyright law secures maximum commercial benefits for original authors.

And in practice, courts would be very reluctant to play micro-managers overturning terms agreed by parties (end or starting credits) etc., significant to a decision on whether to file a legal suit.

From a copyleft perspective, I bemoan the lost opportunity. Usually, copyright disputes become embroiled in theft language with Producers/Publishers crying hoarse about street vendors selling counterfeit copies, and or movie producers defending how their movie is not a rip-off of another film (just inspired )- all tricky issues for copy-lefters whereas this would have been a morally easier case to argue against large media corps. constant fight for more extensions of copyright. Plus, evenly poised from a legal perspective - Bhagat could have emphasized on the oxymoronic issue of the “Original” screenplay of an adapted work; and Producers on the creativity involved in subsequent work (and arguing against more copyright expansions in this instance).

Terra Infirma

The inspiration for this blog...
---

She started rolling up her slightly long T-shirt till it reached her waist. She then bunched the folds into each hand, tugged at it, and tied it carefully into a knot. Next, she started rolling up her sleeves. When she reduced it to a fettucine strap, she clipped it with a clothespin. She turned to me.

I could see her navel resting inside the folds of her slight paunch jutting out under the pressure of her tights. "I want to goto college so that I can wear such dresses everyday," she declared.

My neighbour is all of eight years. "Didi, the US Aunty gave me a Gucci perfume on my birthday. It smells sooo good!" she gushed.

The sleepy suburb I grew up in in Mumbai does smell different now. As children we used to see mountains of garbage piled up near the backwaters of the bay. The evening air used to be spiced with that extra dash of rotting waste. More than five years ago, that area was cleaned up, part of the bay reclaimed, and there came a mall. Suddenly we had essentials like a Hypermarket,Skoda showrooms, and Gelato ice-creams (98% water!).

Talking of flavored water, I have fond memories of having pepsi-cola, coloured and flavoured ice in thin and long cylindrical plastic packets, on our way back from school. Each one cost fifty paise. My little eight-year-old friend goes with her friends to McDonalds to celebrate the last day of the school year. She told me that her friend threw a birthday bash in a salon at the mall where all the little party troopers got a 'make-over'.

The make-over is happening, and is happening really fast.