Whose IPR is it anyway?

Online Money Coach

Online Money Coach — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:30:44 GMT

7 Habits Article Marketing Attraction Marketing Brian Tracy business opportunity direct sales Direct Selling Donald Trump email marketing facebook Goals Goal Setting Highly Effective People home based business home business Leadership lead generation

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Prerna Dwivedi — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:17:54 GMT

Raju - your paper is not doing either the readers or the environment any favour. It is entirely a market driven decision that makes newspapers and magazines publish such stories. People across the world are becoming more aware about environment and how to reduce their ecological footprint. You are only catering to that demand and not driving an environmental movement on your own - like CSE. And by the way a little birdie told me that one of your star environment journalists is an ex CSE person. Something you can surely give CSE credit for. I must also thank you for being so open to debate and letting us post our messages on this blog.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Raju Narisetti — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:17:40 GMT

Shubho--if we really wanted to make this a battle between a big corporate vs a small ngo (neither of which actually are entirely accurate statements re ht media's bigness nor cse's smallness), you can imagine it would have been rather easy to do this in a much more skewed manner using the newspaper's pages, which by its very static nature is a one-way flow of information. I think debates are healthy, which is why I respond once in a while to a specific comment as well. Meanwhile, if the majority view (online or otherwise) dictated the outcomes of private behavior, you can imagine how different a paper Mint would have ended up to be from its current position, given what the majority of business papers look and read like. I am sure HT's legal department will take its own actions...that shouldn't dictate what Mint's editorial does or doesn't, let alone what a Mint blogger can do or not. Incidentally, if anyone out there wants to look at Mint's record of covering serious ngo/environmental issues in its 19 months of existence, especially examining track record of some "big corporates," I am happy to stack that record up against any other business paper in India.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

shubho sengupta — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:36:23 GMT

Raju, it seems you've bitten off more than you can chew. Your point is 100% valid, but the tone and manner you've chosen to articulate it - for reasons best known to yourself - have turned this into a Big Corporate vs Small NGO debate. Please do read the writing on the wall - your blog wall, the majority of the posts clearly think you've goofed. As a Mint reader, my request is don't drag a great publication into further controversy. Leave these things to the legal team. And the courts.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Ravi Srinivasan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:07:54 GMT

Raju, Have you considered the possibility of a more innocent explanation? That the copyright notice put up on the website was included at the time the site was being constructed and the Joe Blow who i actually managing the site for CSE has no clue about it -- or for that matter, a clear idea of the notion of copyright? I have found this attitude scarily prevalent in many newsrooms. Many reporters use Google as a substitute for fact discovery and research. Many journalists also are genuinely surprised when I have told them not to use stuff off the net without a) checking the facts b) checking to see whether one can use it and c) take necessary permission. However, unless you have this as a well-established drill, the odd bit does slip through. An illustrator might use a picture, a sub some additions or backgrounds, and of course, reporters sourcing a pack of information. The fact that CSE appears to have been attributing the source to Mint suggests that there was no mala fide; it may simply mean that whoever was doing it probably didn't know that that was not enough.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Prerna Dwivedi — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:54:07 GMT

Dear Raju I entirely agree about violation of your copyright and I don't contest your claim to compensation but please don't stoop so low and start asking questions about funding of CSE. Why don't you, for a change consider supporting CSE and other NGOs for what they are doing for the benefit of society. Can you ever think of thanking CSE for exposing the cola companies and trying to make the food that me, you, our families consume or for that matter for the clean air we breathe due to CSE's campaign for CNG. I sincerely appeal to you that please first consider this whole idea of NGO bashing as a citizen of Delhi and then do what feels right. Don't be the catalyst for the demise of the civil society organisation.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Raju Narisetti — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:59:30 GMT

Prerna--Did you think HT Media Ltd would simply let me debate the issue in blogs when the company's copyrighted content was being taken without permission? If you haven't realized by now, there is a serious violation of Indian Copyright Act here. All the back and forth arguments here can be used by CSE in a court if they so choose to. And let the courts decide who is right and who isn't. I assume all of us are for rule of law prevailing in India.

And for all those on this forum talking about their NGO status being one reason why they should be let off the hook, wouldn't it be quite interesting to see how much they are getting paid by the Knowledge Commission for managing/providing content to this portal?

Raju Narisetti

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Himanshu Mehta — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:17:23 GMT

i work with a news channel and we always charge non-profits (there are exceptions of course) for all the content that they acquire from us. Why should Mint dole out it's content for free or why should it allow it to be used without as much as 'by your leave'? Non-profits have a budget for content creation and licensing rights should be budgeted for just as everything else is during the creation process.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Prerna Dwivedi — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:49:52 GMT

Dear friends this discussion on IPRs is now useless as I have come to know that our friend Raju had already sent a legal notice to CSE before starting this blog page. What a waste of time.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

prosenjit datta — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:58:10 GMT

Hi Srini, Please focus on the word "permission". Did CSE seek permission before putting up the Mint article on their website? I assume -- and I have only Raju's blog to go by -- that they didn't. That makes it unethical in my book, even if they gave credit to Mint/and the author... I don't know about HT Media or Raju specifically, but many other media companies and editors do not have any problems giving permission to reproduce specific articles in non-commercial websites/intranets provided that permission is sought in the first case.... From what I can make out of Raju's blog, this permission was not sought. Whether Mint would have given permission or not is a differnet issue. The issue here is that CSE needed to seek permission to put up the article on its website....

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

vivek sharma — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:59:00 GMT

continued... Lastly, I picked up the Mahabharata (An Enquiry in the Human Condition by Chaturvedi Badrinath) to learn that quote “in case there is conflict between one dharma and another, one should reflect on their relative weight, and then act accordingly; what does not denigrate and obstruct the others is dharma. Acknowledging the importance of material prosperity, individual and collective, the Mahabharata is at the same time saying, in the clearest of voices, that wealth should be earned through dharma and never through adharma. It is saying that the pursuit of material prosperity of the one, or of a few, should never have the effect of depriving, starving, diminishing, separating, uprooting, hurting, doing violence, debasing and degrading the other. When it does, it becomes self-destructive in the first place. True wealth, individual and social is that wealth which creates: nurturing, cherishing, providing amply, enriching, increasing, enhancing all living beings; and secures for all living beings freedom from violence, freedom from fear. These are the three foundations of artha, true material prosperity; and they are the main attributes of Dharma. The most striking feature of the Mahabharata is its honest observation of the human condition. It is a self-evident fact that what is ‘right’ in one context becomes ‘wrong’ in another context. There are familiar occasions of conflict between two sets of duties, both inviolable. There are situations of conflict between right and right. (and I will place this issue as an example). The value of an act, the Mahabharata shows, depends not only upon one’s motives wholly, but also upon desha and kala, ‘the given place’ and ‘the given time’. The sages have in the treaties relating to Dharma, wealth and material prosperity, and ultimate human freedom, too considered ‘time’ and ‘place’ to be the prime factors in human achievements. ‘Place’ can be seen but not ‘time’. It is within these two coordinates, one seen and the other unseen, that the drama of human life is endlessly enacted. In the light of the relativity of situations, the Mahabharata subjects every human attribute, satya and dharma, ‘truth’ and ‘order’, most of all to intense examination. In describing Yudhisthira’s doubts regarding dharma and adharma, the Mahabharata is honestly raising a question as regards their relativity. A typical statement of relativism is contained in that verse from the Mahabharata which says: “Sacrifice the individual for the sake of the family; the family, for the sake of the village; the village, for the sake of the region; and sacrifice the world for the sake of the soul.” Unquote. On balance, CSE must not break the law, unless it has a stated explicit purpose and point to make, which in this case as I see it, is to look at the larger issue of IPR. If this is not the point it wants to make, then the incident pointed out by Raju, looks like a cheap sneak that diminishes the list of laurels the CSE can do without. And Raju, for all the legalese you can muster, when it comes to IPR, at best your side is an ethical pygmy with integrity perilously close to zero. This is my humble opinion and I am willing to learn more about this.

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

vivek sharma — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:55:41 GMT

First, let me define the parameters as I see it. This is not a simple A Vs B situation. We are not talking of a Business Today ‘stealing’ or the Economic Times ‘thieving’ from Mint. If that were the case, this would be a no-brainer and all of Raju’s woes and law should apply. This becomes interesting because of the particular value systems that each of the involved party subscribes to. Let’s also be clear that one is not better or superior to the other; or that one has more ethics and integrity per sq feet of office space or terabytes of server capacity than the other. Neither is this about whether Mint has more investments to make and therefore obligated to make profits and if CSE is ‘noble’ or ‘moral’ and therefore can play the role of media Robinhood with license to ‘steal’. This is essentially about worldviews and a clash of ideas. Mint will talk about IPR because it represents the ‘formal’ economy and the IPR is a cornerstone of its worldview but why must CSE subscribe to those rules when it represents exactly the opposite? I am not suggesting that CSE must live outside the legal system and break the law, (it follows and enforces the rules of the ‘system’ for its publications) but I will imagine that when push comes to shove about the larger point, CSE will do a Dandi on this issue? (I hope they do, or my argument goes flat and I’ll have egg on my face – which is fine, since I want to focus on the principle). Mint will rightly argue that with no protection, there will be little innovation. While Mint will celebrate the granting of IPR to a company for a computer OS, turmeric, wheat, neem, malaria tablets etc, CSE will work to keep them in community custody. Will either system work if it were the only system – No. Can either system claim to even begin to address the complex realities and aspirations for an equitable and just 21st century – No. Both serve a vital purpose to keep an economy buzzing and it will be delusional for either to be totalitarian on this. So far, both systems have operated in their own zones and therefore lived through relative calm. However, as Raju has discovered to his amazement, we will all be living increasingly in this intersecting grey zone of worldviews which will apply both to the past – traditional knowledge, molecules, etc and the future – internet, molecules, etc, and we will have to engage with real and notional infringements of it. There is no point in discussing this particular case threadbare because it will lead to a deadend but this case can and must take us to the important issue of the Tragedy of the Commons where costs are imposed on others without their consent. This imposition of costs applies to the worldviews of both sides. Economists call these externalities and this can happen because of overuse or underproduction or under representation. These occur because of the lack of property rights or the lack of enforcement thereof. From Mint’s perspective if we view this situation through Ronald Coase –coloured glasses here is what we get. The Coase theorem says: When property rights are assigned and enforced, bargaining leads to maximizing social utility, no matter how the rights are initially assigned! The initial assignment of rights affects only the final distribution of utility (profit). I’ve been told that this is the basis for finding our way out of complex issues, for example, like discovering the price of carbon by fixing the framework through the caps and trade system operates. An aside - this of course works when there is ‘perfect information’…. and as we have seen like with the free market, there isn’t any, ask Greenspan. The Indiaenvironmentalportal at one level is about putting things back into the commons. Why are the Commons not more common? Entrepreneurs, like in this case, the Mint, put effort into defining and enforcing property rights, and capture some of the value created. Fredrich Hayek would say information acquisition is fundamental and so according to him entrepreneurs and managers do not have a problem of how to allocate given resources (to gain information), rather it is a problem of utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in totality. Shouldn’t the same rules apply? What Mint sets out to do for its subscribed readers, CSE does for all. If I were CSE I should be ready to hold on to this skirmish and do battle because it helps draw attention to the big IPR war that must be fought. On the other hand, if I were Mint, I will leave it at the level where it is – an intelligent finger pointing observation at best or if you want to be uncharitable, a whine. As of today, the IPR system is operationally necessary for society to conduct its business in as ‘civil’ a manner as possible, but it is morally and ethically hollow (like slavery) and does not – nay, will not, stand the test of time. Beyond saying that CSE has done something illegal, (which I take is true, but let the lawyers decide that), I will be happy if Raju can make a case of why ‘his law’ is superior and for the greater benefit of society. I assume, Mint defines ‘value’ as monetizing the entire chain – for itself and its readers who presumably will know how to monetize the insights gleaned from the paper. The CSE definition will be relatively fuzzier and intangible, immeasurable because it stretches into the collective. The fundamentals though are the same. Who usurped who’s rights? I repeat, I respect both entities - Mint and CSE for who they are, but this is about what side they represent. Isn’t it increasingly understood that the successful underpinnings of the ‘formal’ economy’ is because of its ability to get away by imposing costs to the natural resource base – indigenous people’s wisdom, culture, natural habitat and so on. Depending on where you fix the starting point for the conversation, it may quite turn out that the current flag bearers of IPR may uncomfortably find themselves at the wrong side of the thin red line. continued....

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

vivek sharma — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:45:06 GMT

i have tried to upload 5 times over 3 days and cant. wot cud it be?

utility price protection | Bookmarks URL

utility price protection | Bookmarks URL — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:31:14 GMT

Pingback from utility price protection | Bookmarks URL

re: Whose IPR is it anyway?

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:54:33 GMT

Please ping back on the above link for an IP blogger's take on the issue.