T M Krishna and Vijay Siva Speak Against Concert Recording

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 07:05

Here is a reference which may be relevant indirectly for our discussions.
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/ ... px?id=1697
I have not gone through it fully yet...

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 17 Jul 2010, 07:26

vk:
I am not dismissing any laws. They are meant to be obeyed unless they are struck down by the courts. If some law is detrimental to some segment of the society --let us say "temple entry for all" law)--those temples which are affected may try to challenge it. But they may not succeed because it comes under the purview of universal rights of citizens. But if non-Hindus are prohibited from some temples can a non-Hindu challenge the practice by the temple based on the law? If so can the temple use certain exceptions provided in the law to their advantage? Such instances have occurred before in other areas. In the Copyrights law under discussion here, the musician duo is interpreting it in their favor because the intent of the law is to protect the rights of the owners of intellectual assets in the areas of literature, music, dance etc. Of course, it does not give blanket protection to them to the detriment of the general public. The so-called exclusion of personal use from the injunction is written in delicately framed sentence which is subject to interpretation by plaintiff lawyers which can be accepted or rejected by the courts. That is my point. I did not say nor mean every law can be flouted or disobeyed. Only when certain crossroads are reached (as it happens now), it becomes crucial to test the provisions of the law.

fduddy · Post by **fduddy** » 17 Jul 2010, 08:21

cmlover

that comment about VS without having had an opportunit to listen is in BAD TASTE.
You seem to more often than not put your foot in your mouth and wriggle out or subjected to be bailed out. In this thread it has been atleast half a dozen time.

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 17 Jul 2010, 09:51

Incidentally, my father (a lawyer in Singapore) is not even convinced that TMK and VS have any absolute copyrights over their music since it apparently takes months and even years to satisfy the copyright regulatory authority that the songs that they sing are truly exclusive in nature, which is one of the primary requirements for a copyright. While the manOdharma may be exclusive (even that may be contested, IMO), the songs they sing certainly cannot be termed exclusive. He says, "If a carnatic song is sung by numerous singers, there is no copyright attached unless the [composer of the ]lyrics and the original singer have applied for exclusive copyrights to the song." He also says that he is not sure about how rigorous India is since "Indian Copyright does not have international force and they dont follow international guidelines in copyright procedure unlike in USA and Singapore." He also suspects that an Indian copyright may not hold overseas due to the discrepancies in laws.

As a disclaimer, my father is not a CM rasika and knows nothing about CM. He is also a corporate lawyer so this is well outside his domain so take it with several pinches of salt. I just thought I'd add his opinions into the mix if anyone is interested...

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 17 Jul 2010, 10:10

Bilahari

Ok now that we have a corporate lawyer(shankarabharanam) to really guide us assisted by gumustA, his son/daughter bilahari .Hopefully take this thread to its right course. Can you ask your dad this question?

By defacto I am assuming if it is not owned by anyone , the govt owns it. Can't a public prosecutor who represents govt (not any individual or corporate)take up this case against the so called folks who think they have a right to record? I am just drawing a parallel to erin brockovich who takes up a case for the environment.

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 17 Jul 2010, 10:16

If it's not legally owned by a specific individual, it is owned by nobody and everybody! My father says that if a LEGAL copyright over ALL of an artiste's music has not been obtained, anyone may record it and distribute it at will.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Jul 2010, 12:24

bilahari, please mention to your father that it is not the copyright in the song that is the issue, it is the rights in a specific performance of that song. Performing rights might be a better phrase?

The word copyright just might be taking us down the wrong road here.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 17 Jul 2010, 12:44

The copyright act specifically addresses performer's right.

At the risk of repeating the same thing again and again, let me:
1. provide the link to the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and
2. point to the relevant sections:

39. Acts not infringing broadcast reproduction right or performerâ€™s right. â€“ No broadcast reproduction right or performer's right shall be deemed to be infringed by-
(a) the making of any sound recording or visual recording for the private use of the person making such recording, or solely for purposes of bona fide teaching or research; or
(b) the use, consistent with fair dealing, of excerpts of a performance or of a broadcast in the
reporting of current events or for bona fide review, teaching or research; or
(c) such order acts, with any necessary adaptations and modifications, which do not constitute infringement of copyright under section 52.
...
52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
(a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of-
(i) private use, including research;
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work;
...

Bilahari - please ask your father to provide his comments in the context of the text of the Act cited above.

Others: could we please restrict our discussion for now to just the Indian copyright act and the relevant sections before digressing to other topics? The idea is to first establish the legality or otherwise of someone recording a concert, at least based on what the Act states. Thanks.

mankuthimma · Post by **mankuthimma** » 17 Jul 2010, 13:13

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH .
Let us permit ourselves the luxury of only one more post per person and wind up.Let us not attribute Motives . Also we need not pontificate.If these artists are perceived as doing so , let us allow it to pass . They give us so much joy that they should be allowed a bit of leeway.
This final bunch of responses can be taken as the collective feelings of rasikas , if the artist community wishes to accept it.

My last few cents :
If I were one of these artists , I would feel that I am fully justified in letting know my feelings to the public at large, about someone recording my performances Without my permission.Even if through hastily crafted articles in newspapers.
So far so good.
Beyond this I would have nothing else to say or comment about happenings in the world generally and in Indian Music circles , specifically.
I would fully understand that the law of the land has to be upheld both in letter and spirit.While I would not like to jump the gun and try to foresee how the courts would look at the myriad responsibilities regarding copyright , I am convinced that they have better things to do .And when the occasion does come-God Forbid-, everyone will be wiser after the judgements are made.
This CM is rarest of flowers and we in the market place... sellers , garland makers , passersby, The Lord Himself can stop in our tracks to count our blessings and give back to the artist community in general, and these two in particular ,our LOVE , through a benefit of doubt and say :
We shall come to Listen. To internalise .And will not record if it hurts you so badly.
We all owe the artists only our Love and nothing else.If we dont crowd you after each concert , let it be because we are too shy.Not because we have cheated you.
Let us settle it once for all.Some day these artists may regret not finding a place in history through some of their most inspired music , for lack of such recordings.The world shall be poorer for this reason , but will understand that some law of the land was at work.
Now on to the next poster .
Please let us stick to one post per person on this thread before winding up.
Ah ! There goes my favourite Jamboopathe of VS into by recycle bin

And I am not joking.I am serious.

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 17 Jul 2010, 13:16

Yes, I have asked my father specifically about the performer's right and will wait for his response.

Meanwhile, if you continue reading article 52 in the Act, you come across the following exemptions:

The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

(k) 112 the causing of a recording to be heard in public by utilising it,-
(i) in an enclosed room or hall meant for the common use of residents in any residential premises
(not being a hotel or similar commercial establishment) as part of the amenities provided exclusively
or mainly for residents therein; or
(ii) as part of the activities of a club or similar organisation which is not established or conducted for
profit;
(iii) as part of the activities of a club, society or other organisation which is not established or
conducted for profit;

I wonder how a court might interpret this if extended to online sharing of music in a non-profit group like, say, rasikas or Sangeethapriya?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Jul 2010, 13:42

If I were one of these artists , I would feel that I am fully justified in letting know my feelings to the public at large, about someone recording my performances Without my permission.Even if through hastily crafted articles in newspapers.

TMK is trying to establish a sideline profession for himself as a writer: "hastily crafted" (or rather written with no craft at all) is part of the complaint: If he wants to do this (no reason why not: we don't complain about other musicians having other sources of income)), then let him do it properly. and be willing to accept criticism.

Yes, after 260 posts, perhaps everything that should be said has been said, and even repeated --- but my tax-paid money is on reaching 360! At least!

fduddy · Post by **fduddy** » 17 Jul 2010, 16:12

cmlover wrote:OK! I withdraw those comments which I did not make seriously but in a lighter vein!
However I felt bad about VS associating with TMK on this enterprise - could not see anything common except for the love of the glitter of silver! (certainly not a love of CM)

How is that every time you shoot your foot, you come out with an apology or a withdrawal of the comment you made!
Why on earth you expect a rescue mission after making unwarranted statements.
Why is it that you admonish other members if they cross the lines but there is no line for you. This is a clear case of taking advantage of your position (MOD)
I guess your posts should be moderated by a separate mod team.

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 17 Jul 2010, 16:28

My father says that per the provisions of section 39, private recordings are legally allowed as long as the person recording claims only to use them for teaching/research purposes as stated in 39, or for criticism and review as stated in 52. He also says that per the section of 52 I quoted, it is most probably OK to share in public (online) these recordings in websites like rasikas/ Sangeethapriya even if they are not established societies/organisations as long as it is not for profit.

He also says that it is VERY difficult to sue for copyright infringement, especially in India ("The Indian Act lacks teeth where enforcement is concerned"). He says in any copyright infringement lawsuit, the most important consideration is: was the defendant's infringement for pecuniary gain? If it isn't, it's not a lawsuit worthy of consideration in court. He also mentions constantly that the 'burden of proof' lies with the performer. Further, "Their [plaintiffs'] only remedy is an equitable remedy called an INJUNCTION to restrain the offending party from downloading and subsequent uploading of any musical works by the aggrieved musicians. This is a boondoggle and beyond their reach ."

He also says that that jurisdiction is a very important consideration in these matters. So if an upload is done in US, then the US law applies in evaluating infringement, and the case must be tried in a US court, etc. He also says that if any rasika is ever threatened unfairly, he will gladly help them pro bono. (But I hope the need will not arise

)

So the bottomline, as far as my father's concerned, is: private recordings are OK, dissemination of recordings are also OK, as long as neither is used for any kind of commercial gain on the part of the recorder.

The question I have is:
The recorder does not make money from recording a concert or sharing it.
The performer feels he is somehow LOSING money by this recorder recording his concert.
How do we reconcile this? I frankly don't think anybody can really PROVE that a performer's sales are negatively impacted by making of private recordings. I also don't think that proving this would be sufficient to actively implicate the recorder, when the recorder is obviously not "stealing" from the musician, or taking away a share of the musician's income for himself. As such, to use a scientific analogy, I think this is more a case of heat dissipation than heat transfer from system A (performer) to system B (recorder/ evil rasika).

So how do we stem this dissipation? Perhaps this is where Arun's ideas of reinventing the system come into play. It is up to the musicians to keep pace with the technological evolution (aka the era of microgadgets). How do they do this? My father doesn't seem to think suing their customers is a legally tenable option at all. For a start, why not release MORE music commercially? Why not have it for sale ONLINE, like iTunes, and thus more easily accessible for rasikas all over the world? And why not sell more live concert recordings rather than those staged albums? I'm not well versed in business/anything related to moneymaking, so these are very rough suggestions.

Of course, there is always the problem of one person purchasing the music and then merely copying it for his friends, etc. This is a significant problem and does need to be tackled (in ALL music forms in the world).

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 17 Jul 2010, 16:47

Say XYZ Sabha in Madras oranises a concert of TMK or VS. The sabha pays for the hall, sound system, marketing etc etc. They have agreed with TMK that they will record the concert for their own purposes and agree on a fixed amount for the performance and for the sabha recording. TMK also makes sure that the sabha will not release the recording without some sort of additonal payment to all the artists on stage. The concert is advertised as "All are welcome".

Now, how anyone as a raskia who went to listen to the concert take a tape recorder and record it? What if TMK refuses to sing there and then and asks the sabha to get rid of the rasika?

Didn't Subuddu get thrown out the Music Academy because of his reviews against SSI?

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 17 Jul 2010, 17:06

TMK would probably be bound by a legal contract to sing in that sabha. There probably would NOT be a clause to the effect of, "if a rasika irritates me by doing something that is illegal only in my esteem, I will not sing for you". The rasika probably could not be ejected from the premises either for no good reason (unless the sabha has the legal right to eject anyone per their whims and fancies, in which case said rasika could retroactively sue the sabha). I REALLY doubt the sabhas and TMK are quite so attuned to legal nuances, though. The more practical outcome would be: TMK yells at rasika, rasika (if a bold one like r-t and not one of those jellyfish types) refuses to halt recording quoting section 52 of copyright act, TMK throws tantrum, sabha tries to pacify TMK/ stop rasika from recording, rasika persists, TMK continues angrily (and vainika's advice would come in handy here).

I really wonder if sabhas have contracts drawn up these days requiring artistes to show up promptly, sing for the full duration, etc. I highly doubt it, actually.

But all this is just speculation until some brave/ curious enough soul actually tries this!

ramarama · Post by **ramarama** » 17 Jul 2010, 18:43

Bilahari's reference to artiste contracts with sabhas prompted this tangential thought about artiste's responsibilities to the sabha and paying rasikas. Very many times, in my concert organizing experience, "distinguished" artistes have disappointed the organizer and ticket buying public by singing/performing in a half-hearted way, or sometimes not even lasting the duration of a standard length concert. A huge amount of money and effort spent publicizing the concert, getting tickets sold (one-desperate-attempt-at-a-time) all goes to waste then - and it also damages the organizer's ability to do all of this again for the next big concert. How does one hold artistes to some contractual delivery of some minimal quality and quantity? yes, art is not a commodity to be measured and traded - and yet, when artistes lay down all kinds of rules and clauses about how their name should be promoted and the concert arranged (down to what titles should be advertised, what colour sari the tanpura artiste should wear, what announcements if any should be made before and after their concert), surely the organizer should also perhaps hold back some some of the original agreed upon amount back as a gratuity to be paid only for a satisfactorily rendered concert? Or in the case of artistes visiting and staying in hotels, only after all the "extra" expenses on international phone calls, extra food and beverages, have been paid directly by the visiting artiste.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 17 Jul 2010, 18:48

Or in the case of artistes visiting and staying in hotels, only after all the "extra" expenses on international phone calls, extra food and beverages, have been paid directly by the visiting artiste - This is quite legit. Evaluating the concert will be very tricky unless we have a survey of the audience and we manage with the facts.

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 17 Jul 2010, 19:28

bilahari wrote: The recorder does not make money from recording a concert or sharing it.
The performer feels he is somehow LOSING money by this recorder recording his concert.
How do we reconcile this?

Say Mr Singh has attended a partcular concert which liked a lot. He manages to get a non-authorised (but good quality) recording of this concert. A few months later the same concert is released commercially on CD. Mr Singh is browsing a CD store and sees this concert. It is unlikely that he will buy the CD because he already has a recording. The recording company and artiste lose out on a potential sale.

If on the otherhand he doesn't have the non-authorised recording, it is likely that Mr Singh would have purchased the CD.

Similarly I have some downloads from Sangeetham share of concerts from yesteryear. Recently I have noticed the same concerts are being released commercially. I am less likely to buy these concerts if I already have them!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 19:35

Let me not sidetrack on the issue of my post. But still some appear to be rankling on that issue.
First there was nothing derogatory or objectionable in that post. Read it calmly and carefully.
Second it is a personal opinion. I have as much right to appreciate/evaluate/comment on the 'vidvat' of any CM artiste and express my views freely
There is no universal taste in CM. There are thousands who consider KJY a supreme CM artiste while many here willl not even touch him with a ****** end of a barge pole

Are you the custodian of CM to dictate to others as to who should be appreciated and who not!
In fact if I had made those same comments about TMK there would be no ripple at all since most of you hate him for his 'guts' and the TMK supporters are not represented here!

Some of you chose to attack me using a 'strong' language. You are attacking the messenger instead of the message. Only R-T took the right aproach by providing a proof of a superb rendition by VS which I immensely enjoyed. I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I am wrong. At my age if I can't control my 'ego' I can least expect salvation! But one swallow does not make the spring. VS is certainly still not on the top of my list. Of course I will listen to him more if only he makes available his good inspiring concerts instead of some inane devotionals in cassettes. But he is cutting his feet off by this attitude of his performances not being availble through the stance he is taking!

Lastly don't think this Forum is not tightly moderated. I and all of us are subject to the same rules. The axe would have fallen heavily on my statement if it was judged objectionable. Let common sense and not blind emotion be the judge of that!

This summer is very hot! If you want to cool off venting on my shoulders (which of course is too short due to my age) by all means you are welcome. But do that in a separate thread without disrupting the flow of thought in this one . Shower all your brick bats with no let or hindrance, but using a decent language (since MODs won't tolerate any objectionable language here!). Or take R-T's approach of providing objective proof to convince me and change my views! Better send me the superb secret recordings of VS that you may have made

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 19:39

Good counterpoint Mohan!

laks1972 · Post by **laks1972** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:07

members who have visited the original article website
http://expressbuzz.com/magazine/listen- ... 88363.html

can notice that Smt Sudha Raghunathan (hopefully the the real one) has posted the below:
"I personally think that it is wrong to stop the recoding of our concerts. Of course they should seek our permission ahead which should be granted. This may be only for private listening and never to be commercially or otherwise exploited"

Very nice and generous of you, thank you .

mridhangam · Post by **mridhangam** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:11

Friends

It is really painful to see our names being used without our knowledge in that article in Expressbuzz.com comments. I categorically state that i have not written any comment in that article. Members please do not heed to any such false claims. Our names and email addresses have been used spuriously.

Thank you for your understanding
Mannarkoil J Balaji

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:23

Thanks Balaji for that alert. We shall hereafter ignore the comments made under celebrity names therein but stick to the material of the topic here.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:26

To mohan's point,
(i) The issue is someone shared a personal recording. So there is one act of recording (at that time presumably for personal purposes), and another of sharing. One does not imply the other (otherwise you are presuming guilt until proven innocent) , but we do know it has happened many many times. But still not always...

I do know Indian Copyright laws are less strict compared to other countries (which believe it or not is praised in many circles in the US where they think the recording industry has way too much unfair clout to the detriment of rights of consumer), but I would like to know if it separates between the two acts: "recording for personal purposes" (which it allows) vs. "then uploading on internet for a much wider circulation" (even if it is in a non-commercial, social website), and whether "website" falls within the social club clause

Also, I read that India's fair use version isn't a formulaic but seems to list out specific cases. So we also have to ask if bootleg recording of a live concert is considered a recording for "personal use". In many ways is not that different from recording a radio broadcast (see below), and so I would assume yes even if the recording quality can be superior to the FM quality.

(ii) So while there is a valid argument that sharing an unauthorized recording affects bottom line of the copyright holder, the issue cannot rest on that point alone. For example, radio stations broadcast commercial stuff - all the time. Someone can make a personal recording which albeit not CD quality (FM quality) can still be quite acceptable per what an average listener expects particularly for CM. That person then sees the CD of the same recording in a store. He/She may be less willing to buy even CD quality is higher - if FM quality is acceptable to him, and his/her spending habits.

So by the same argument, should radio broadcast of recorded music be stopped because it can certainly be argued to affect the bottom line?

BTW, I could wrong but the RIAA in US, wants to believe that recording of any kind for personal purposes infringes copyright - which is exactly why many many people in the US think these guys don't believe in any "fair use" (which is provisioned in US copyright law), and thus feel that India's copyright act is actually better/healthier for the consumer). For example, if a recording you buy has DRM (Digital Rights Management) and you want to listen it in your iPod (or other device) also which does not support DRM, and you "break" the DRM in order to load on your iPod, I think US copyright law says it is illegal - "any circumvention" of DRM is illegal and thus this is a copyright infringement. But the Indian copyright (amended this year?) supposedly specifically allows for this. Basically as long as you don't try to profit from it, it is ok. But again, I would like to know if it addresses "what if I don't profit but distribute it freely for a wider audience". If it is "agnostic" (very probable), then this issue isn't illegal yet and would remain so if and only if copyright law gets amended to address it.

But I would also be surprised if one thinks it is his fundamental right to record a concert and that the sabha (whose premises the recording is made) disallows it per their "rules and regulations". I would think property rights come into play and I don't know "right to record" is that fundamental - because by that token "no photography allowed" could be challenged as well. But I would imagine that the worst the sabha could do in the absense of law that establishes the act as illegal, is to remove you from the premises.

Arun

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:28

My father says that per the provisions of section 39, private recordings are legally allowed as long as the person recording claims only to use them for teaching/research purposes as stated in 39, or for criticism and review as stated in 52. He also says that per the section of 52 I quoted, it is most probably OK to share in public (online) these recordings in websites like rasikas/ Sangeethapriya even if they are not established societies/organisations as long as it is not for profit.
bilahari:
Per your father's opinion it is "most probably OK" to share. If he were the judge delivering that opinion in a court case with a certainty there is no problem.. Since it is not so, his legal mind's dictate may not jibe with that of judge giving a verdict.

He also says that it is VERY difficult to sue for copyright infringement, especially in India ("The Indian Act lacks teeth where enforcement is concerned"). He says in any copyright infringement lawsuit, the most important consideration is: was the defendant's infringement for pecuniary gain? If it isn't, it's not a lawsuit worthy of consideration in court. He also mentions constantly that the 'burden of proof' lies with the performer.
Yes, the burden of proof rests with the performer, alright. Could he claim that by sharing the recording with another individual the performer is losing a potential customer who would otherwise have bought a CD (since he got it free he would not buy it --that would be the argument
Further, "Their [plaintiffs'] only remedy is an equitable remedy called an INJUNCTION to restrain the offending party from downloading and subsequent uploading of any musical works by the aggrieved musicians. This is a boondoggle and beyond their reach ."
Quite true! These cases can take forever especially this is of least importance in the opinion of the court. Look at the Jayendra Saraswati case. Even though it was earth-shaking at the time he was arrested it appears that case is deeply buried at the bottom of the pile in the court docket. If that be the case you can imagine the fate of this silly copyright lawsuit

He also says that that jurisdiction is a very important consideration in these matters. So if an upload is done in US, then the US law applies in evaluating infringement, and the case must be tried in a US court, etc.
So the bottomline, as far as my father's concerned, is: private recordings are OK, dissemination of recordings are also OK, as long as neither is used for any kind of commercial gain on the part of the recorder.
....as long as .... That is the clincher. I am not sure of the locus shopping. If the act of recording was done in the US the case has to be in the US court. If it is done in India by a US citizen, the defendant can be summoned to India for a court case. Of course, how to enforce that is another question. Repatriation for such a low level infraction is not in the books for any country. Roman Polanski is free now. Imagine.
[/quote]
To sum up: It will not be easy either for the plaintiff or the defendant. Only the two lawyers will be the beneficiaries unless they do pro bono work. I am not sure if that is practical considering how long these cases will drag on.The only way to test it out is to commit the "infraction" and wait for the lawsuit. Until then everything we say or write here is in the realm of speculation.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:39

laks1972 wrote:members who have visited the original article website
http://expressbuzz.com/magazine/listen- ... 88363.html

can notice that Smt Sudha Raghunathan (hopefully the the real one) has posted the below:
"I personally think that it is wrong to stop the recoding of our concerts. Of course they should seek our permission ahead which should be granted. This may be only for private listening and never to be commercially or otherwise exploited"

Very nice and generous of you, thank you .

Please do not take any of those names as genuine. In the comments section of articles, 99% of the times the name is not genuine. Anyone can specify any artists name while commenting.

I thought after these many years of internet use, our members would not be naive enough to consider such things as real. It is sad that artists are forced to come out and disclaim those comments. Of course, we do not know if those disclaimers came from the artists or not!! Sri. Balaji has done that here and so we know that is genuine.

Consider all of those artists' comments as fake, by default.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:40

Please let us stop dreaming that artists are posting there on that Indian express site. They know better.

Internet anonymity more than often brings out the worst, and that frequently involves false ids, imposters - whatever it takes to score a point. In fact a complaint to a chicago organization about a thread "detrimental to the organization" in rasikas.org was made in my name (because everyone knows which area I am from) a couple of years ago. It was pathetic, disgusting but also quite laughable

- i had to shake my head in wonderment at the level people would stoop too. All it took was "hey there is a thread which is showing the org in bad light". But no, it had to "authentic" and so It had to be from "arunk" who happens to hail from the neighborhood.

Perhaps there is a notion that rasika community is a peace loving, benevolent group whose only purpose is to listen to spiritually uplifting music. But in reality it is in simply like the real world - it has good, bad and the downright ugly, and people will use every trick in the book to score a point. The music and its message has minimal impact on us as a whole.

Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:44

I have a 'quick and dirty' solution which will bypass the legal angle.

Let the Rasikas continue to record the concerts which cannot be easily detected due to the advancement in technology.They should tamper with the recording (scramble the list /leave some out/ modify the pitch' etc) and share them privately (never commercially) calling it 'unknown artiste at unknown time and place'. There will be no way of proving that it belongs to any specified one unless a careful voice test is done. To prove they must have a record of their original rendering for that time and place to convince the judge that it has been doctored! That enterprise will be very expensive and time consuming for them.Also the burden of proof is on the accuser! Further most of the Rasikas are only interested in 'good' CM and the name of the artiste is just immaterial. What is in a name after all!

Of course this is sneaky and unethical but will teach them a lesson

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:44

All it took was "hey there is a thread which is showing the org in bad light". But no, it had to "authentic" and so It had to be from "arunk" who happens to hail from the neighborhood.

Nothing funny about the episode, of course.

prashant · Post by **prashant** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:53

cmlover wrote: First there was nothing derogatory or objectionable in that post. Read it calmly and carefully.
Second it is a personal opinion. I have as much right to appreciate/evaluate/comment on the 'vidvat' of any CM artiste and express my views freely

You have a thick skin, cmlover, I give you that!

cmlover wrote: Is this a case of "poovuDan SErnda nArum..."
(you can interpret 'poo' in the western sense too

There is nothing derogatory in this silliness that I have quoted above? Well, I guess I'm a real prude then. Adieu to this thread. cmlover vaazhga!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 20:56

arunk wrote: ......
Perhaps there is a notion that rasika community is a peace loving, benevolent group whose only purpose is to listen to spiritually uplifting music. But in reality it is in simply like the real world - it has good, bad and the downright ugly, and people will use every trick in the book to score a point. The music and its message has minimal impact on us as a whole.

Arun

Don't be pessimistic and too hard on our membership. We are on the whole a nice decent collection of good people coming here to share and enjoy our CM experience with all good intentions!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 17 Jul 2010, 21:02

I believe the word is realistic.

Arun

laks1972 · Post by **laks1972** » 17 Jul 2010, 21:13

mridhangam wrote:Friends

It is really painful to see our names being used without our knowledge in that article in Expressbuzz.com comments. I categorically state that i have not written any comment in that article. Members please do not heed to any such false claims. Our names and email addresses have been used spuriously.

Thank you for your understanding
Mannarkoil J Balaji

Also there is a post by a person claiming to be Bombay Jayashree and a subsequent post from the real Bombay Jayashree clarifying and disowning the earlier post.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jul 2010, 21:26

How do we know whether the 'real' ones are real even

Better ignore them all unless they choose to write their views in a News article or interviews...

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Jul 2010, 22:25

bilahari, your father's contribution is worth a hundred of our speculations, even the ones that turned out to be absolutely right. There is nobody that understands the ways of the law, as well as its words, like a professional lawyer. I'm sure I won't be the only one who would like you to extend thanks to him.

In terms of internet sharing, it leaves us with a warning to know where the site is hosted, and thus what law applies. This one is hosted in USA --- where the law is fierce and the penalties substantial.

Always_Evolving · Post by **Always_Evolving** » 17 Jul 2010, 23:47

cmlover wrote:

Some of you chose to attack me using a 'strong' language. You are attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Cml: Your remarks were really jarring. The discussion is about the arguments made by TMK and VS -- both form and content. Not about comparing and contrasting their vidwats, or their respective levels of materialism. Pray, who was it that attacked the messenger in the first place?!

Yes anyone is entitled to personal opinion and preferences as far as vidwat. But this discussion is not about vidwat. Your post itself was the side-track. The objections that followed were but inevitable and I am sure people would have dropped the side-track had you gracefully removed by means of editing at least that last sentence.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 18 Jul 2010, 00:56

bilahari - please convey our sincere thanks to your father (sankarabharanam, as rajeshnat calls him!) for the clarification. It's as I had expected. My own feeling is that recording for one's personal use is absolutely fine, but uploading on a shared site etc can potentially be problematic.

Re: scenarios like the one that mohan has outlined: for every such scenario, I can come up with another one where sales are boosted - e.g. you come across an upload and hear about a new artiste, and go out and buy lots of their CDs, if they are avilable - or attend their concerts. I plan to do this for Bangalore brothers whom I had never even heard about until I saw the youtube clips.

Thus on average the pluses and minuses cancel out - although I feel the sales boosting scenario is more plausible, especially for the lesser known artistes.

My own take on this is that the more established artistes (like VS/TMK) may have less of an appetite for private recordings, while the vast majority of musicians out there (outside of the top-15 celebrity musicians) would rather that someone provide them publicity, thus bringing their vidwat to the attention of the musical world.

If this thread has served any purpose for me personally, it's that I came to know about these wonderful vidwans: Bangalore brothers. I sincerely hope they gain the recognition and popularity that they deserve. Perhaps coolkarni will include them in his concert plans.

And Nick: my bet is that the no. of posts will soon cross 500!

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 18 Jul 2010, 01:07

"most of the Rasikas are only interested in 'good' CM and the name of the artiste is just immaterial. What is in a name after all! " - Prasant: I concur with your point. However, I do not think rasikas will take the pain of altering, editing, etc to circulate, although there may be some bad apples among rasikas too.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 18 Jul 2010, 01:12

Always_Evolving
done editing!
Now put that one away and focus on the issue under discussion!
Nice to have you back! Hope you will stay with us...(and you too prashant...)

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Jul 2010, 01:28

What is in a name after all!

Quite a lot... identities, paramparas, family trees... all seem to be of great consequence to rasikas!

harimau · Post by **harimau** » 18 Jul 2010, 07:44

Hari in the Well posed the wrong question to his lawyer father.

T M Krishna and Vijay Siva were equally wrong when they postulated in their writing that the copyright of a public performance belongs to them. Everybody has jumped on that and tried prove them wrong by quoting the Copyright Act. I think another law may be overriding in this case... that would be Contract Law.

Let us take the situation of a movie like "Anniyan" with Vikram in it and famous for the song "Iyengar Veettu Azhagiye" in Raga Nattai with some swara sahithya from "Jagadanandakaraka". Can Vikram, having been paid a princely sum to act in the movie, now claim copyright for the movie and restrain the producer from distributing it and exhibiting it in theaters? No! Why? Because of Contract Law.

Similarly, the Carnatic musicians who have raised the bogey of Copyright Law have to understand that they are performing for hire by the Sabha or organizer. As such, the copyright may very well belong to the organizer rather than the musicians involved.

In that case, the organizer is well within his rights to demand that ragam-talam stop recording. Failure to comply can be cause for eviction of ragam-talam from the venue along with his recorder.

But, if the organizer does not object, then anybody and everybody can record to his heart's content and there is nothing the musicians can do about it.

In practical terms, it is all a question of who has greater clout.

Just as TMK-VS sing songs of contemporary composers without paying a cent in royalty because the composers want their songs to become known and popular, it is entirely possible to record netru-mulaittha-kaalaans (mushrooms that bloomed yesterday) because they need the support of the rasikas. When they reach the level of a TMK or VS, they can and do start demanding that nobody should record them.

So, even if an organizer is willing to waive his copyright and let ragam-talam record a TMK concert, the question is whom will the organizer try to please: ragam-talam or TMK?

I will bet on TMK winning that one.

But if the organizer records the concert even for commercial purposes, there is little that TMK can do about it unless there is an explicit contract that lays out the rights of both parties to the contract.

fduddy · Post by **fduddy** » 18 Jul 2010, 08:03

cmlover wrote:Always_Evolving
done editing!
Now put that one away and focus on the issue under discussion!
Nice to have you back! Hope you will stay with us...(and you too prashant...)

How typical of you cmlover.
Your ideas on data scrambling will be usefull for the BL's

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 18 Jul 2010, 08:24

Ohhh lord. I am so tired of all this legal discussion. Seems like the hypotheses have all been laid out and all that remains is the actual experiment!

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 18 Jul 2010, 08:44

An ounce of practice is worth more than a ton of legal theorizing.
I recommended that to r-t several posts earlier and he/she is going to do it, I am sure

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 18 Jul 2010, 08:45

Thanks Harimau for thrashing (?threshing) it out line by line!
Now the ball is in the court of the TMK/VS lawyers.
Let us wait till R-T flies the trial baloon for the outcome!

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 18 Jul 2010, 09:15

Here is a clarification:-
a) A performer has a copyright over his performance, i.e. perormer's right.
b) Anyone (including a Sabha) who makes a contract with a performer for a recording, will have a 'reproduction right'.

The Copyright Act specifies the limitation of both the performer's right and the reproduction right. Here is the relevant section:-

Section 39.95 Acts not infringing broadcast reproduction right or performerâ€™s right.
No broadcast reproduction right or performer's right shall be deemed to be infringed by-
(a) the making of any sound recording or visual recording for the private use of the person making such recording, or solely for purposes of bona fide teaching or research; ...

Section 52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.
(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: (a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [not being a computer programme] for the purposes of-
(i) private use, including research; ...

A Sabha organizes a kutcheri not for the purpose of recording; it is for the purpose of musical performance. Here, there is only "performer's right" and any recording for 'personal use' will not infringe on this right.

ksrimech · Post by **ksrimech** » 18 Jul 2010, 10:04

abbabba.... once we try to find rishimoolam-nadimoolam, so many things are coming out. Brilliant.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Jul 2010, 12:08

Similarly, the Carnatic musicians who have raised the bogey of Copyright Law have to understand that they are performing for hire by the Sabha or organizer. As such, the copyright may very well belong to the organizer rather than the musicians involved.

Harimau, we have been there in the discussion. My submission was that the copyright in a performance is not owned by the organiser unless it is specifically assigned to them in writing. Perhaps Bilahari might pester his father one more time to see if I am right on this one.

From another thread on this forum, I see TMK has posted a concert of his online, along with a statement which does represent something of a climbdown in attitude, if not in stance. He seems to have learnt that it would be better for him if he, at least, tries to say it nicely! But (short extract for review or discussion: ok in UK copyright law, so I hope it is in India too!) still...

Yes free recordings being circulated do affect CD sales. Just like free concert on one day affect sales of tickets of the artist if he/she is singing a ticketed concert the next day. I have discussed this in detail with recording companies. Cannot give all the details here.

. Not exactly proof, is it? All supposition. Cannot give all the details? Hasn't given any details!

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 18 Jul 2010, 12:49

From another thread on this forum, I see TMK has posted a concert of his online,

I assume you are referring to this: http://www.tmkrishna.com/read3.html

This chap is a joke. His arrogance shines thru the entire article.
What he doesn't get still is that I or any other person doesn't need his permission to record! And yes, I do plan to challenge him on this head-on.

What's ironical is that I don't even like his music, hence haven't bothered to download the concert he has provided at the above location. I do things on my terms, hence will record his concert in full view - only to go home and delete it, not because of any copyright fears, but just that I would rather use the space in my recorder for music that I enjoy!

If you watch his videos on youtube, you can see the coterie of his chelas surrounding him etc.
This guy is a real megalomaniac, and it shows thru clearly in his attitude in this article and the one in Express. The sycophants around him do feed his ego!

Pathetic indeed.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Jul 2010, 13:25

He is performing tomorrow... but I don't think you are in Chennai?

I gather that he is pretty hot on audience behaviour in general. Not such a bad thing! But it does rather depend how one does it. Anyway, I gave up one performer because I got sick of his lectures on religion (and the fact that he didn't give a decent share of time to the violin) and I'm not about to go to concerts for law lectures, so I shan't be going to his concerts. Not that I have been anyway.

I have no intention of being confrontational, though, as I do not want to cause embarrassment to the other musicians, the organisers, the audience. This isn't saying anybody else shouldn't, if they feel the need.