Aplogy
Bangalore
The concert by Shri N. Vijay Siva and Shri T.M.Krishna at Chembur fine
Arts Society, Mumbai, on the 17th of October was a much looked forward
to concert. I live in Bangalore and was unable to attend the same. In
my eagerness to listen to the concert, I obtained an illegal recording
of the concert from the Internet. When I shared this information with
the concerned artistes congratulating them on their performance, they
immediately wanted me to delete my copy and also reveal the name of
the person who sourced the illegal recording to me over the internet.
I did not wish to name my source but I confirmed that I deleted my
copy. I subsequently received a notice concerning this from the legal
counsel of Shri N. Vijay Siva and Shri T.M.Krishna.
I am extremely sorry that I have been party to such an illegal act of
recording and sharing recordings of a concert without the permission
of the artists and the organizers concerned. I apologise to the
artistes Shri. N. Vijay Siva, Shri. T.M.Krishna, Kum Amritha Murali,
Shri N.Manoj Siva, Shri B.S.Purushotham and the organizers of the
concert Dr Prasad and Shri Prashant for this. I promise that I will
not take part in such acts again.
S. Hariharan
C Parthapratim
Ridiculous! I don't believe these people are musicians at any rate.
Music, like knowledge, is for dissemination. The basic principle of
Indian music is that. This is not a saleable commodity, nor there can
be any exclusive copyright on anything. Did these 'artists' pay
requisite royalty fees to the composer of the Kritee, the inventor of
the raag, did they pay for the patent rights to people who invented
and modified the instruments they used?
Copyright awareness must have a limit. And here we find an extreme
case.
Partha
Vishwaroopa Sharma
How come you forget these men are music sellers? You see they have a
water-tight attitude in their business.
> Did these 'artists' pay
> requisite royalty fees to the composer of the Kritee, the inventor of
> the raag, did they pay for the patent rights to people who invented
> and modified the instruments they used?
They are speaking legally. Don't ever expect the ethical consciousness.
Imnot Apadmashri
However, it is interesting to note on r.m.i.c and elsewhere the
collective indignity of those who happily enjoy the fruits of artists'
labour without ever paying a penny to the artists who spent their time
and energy coming to the point where they can give a performance worth
stealing! Hear all ye believers in "music wants to be free" - if the
number of good musicians dwindles, those who survive play to the
gallery, etc. etc., then it is partly due to your actions too.
See Shriimadbhagavadgiitaa Chapter 3 shloka 12.
DG
Imnot Apadmashri
> collective indignity ...
Oops! I meant "collective _indignation_.
DG
C Parthapratim
wrote:
If someone doesn't survive only because of certain fringe cases of
"copyright infringement", then what survives [with a sigh a of relief]
is MUSIC, IMHO.
Partha
Vishwaroopa Sharma
wrote:
> No coments on the incident itself.
>
> However, it is interesting to note on r.m.i.c and elsewhere the
> collective indignity of those who happily enjoy the fruits of artists'
> labour without ever paying a penny to the artists who spent their time
> and energy coming to the point where they can give a performance worth
> stealing!
It is also interesting to know this sort of superiority invoked
unilateral conclusion.
> Hear all ye believers in "music wants to be free" - if the
> number of good musicians dwindles, those who survive play to the
> gallery, etc. etc., then it is partly due to your actions too.
And *most* of the people who claim otherwise happily enjoy eating
forbidden fruits (of course surreptitiously). It is also an
interesting phenomenon.
> See Shriimadbhagavadgiitaa Chapter 3 shloka 12.
Before quoting any scriptures of India, it must also be noted that
Indian thought has never nurtured the concept of copyright. No body in
Indian culture has ever claimed such market rights on his intellectual
presentations. Now the whole point is that music is a salable
commodity and nothing else. Has it not been, no body has ever bothered
to waste even a stroke of key to write in this regard. As far as the
music sellers claim they are a part of Indian culture, they should
also be aware of our heritage.
Imnot Apadmashri
> Before quoting any scriptures of India, it must also be noted that
> Indian thought has never nurtured the concept
So the scriptures are not part of what you call "culture", eh? Were
you refering to bacteria in yogurt when you said "culture"? I can
certainly believe that those have no notion of copyright.
Each suukta in Rigveda bears the name of its Rishi, so the concept of
authorship has existed in India for long. The Ganapati
Atharvashiirsha carries with it this notice:restricting copying:
इदमथर्वशीर्षम_ अशिष्याय न देयम_ | यो यदि मोहाद्दास्यति स पापीयान_
भवति |
And payments for the transfer of Intellectual property (in the form of
Gurudakshina) are made by several characters of the Mahabharata.
DG
C Parthapratim
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:03 am, Vishwaroopa Sharma <vkr...@yahoo.in> wrote:
>
> > Before quoting any scriptures of India, it must also be noted that
> > Indian thought has never nurtured the concept
>
> So the scriptures are not part of what you call "culture", eh? Were
> you refering to bacteria in yogurt when you said "culture"? I can
> certainly believe that those have no notion of copyright.
>
> Each suukta in Rigveda bears the name of its Rishi, so the concept of
> authorship has existed in India for long. The Ganapati
> Atharvashiirsha carries with it this notice:restricting copying:
>
> इदमथर्वशीर्षम_ अशिष्याय न देयम_ | यो यदि मोहाद्दास्यति स पापीयान_
> भवति |
>
Very true, but they were more in the lie of our GNU/GPL, if that means
anything to you.
> And payments for the transfer of Intellectual property (in the form of
> Gurudakshina) are made by several characters of the Mahabharata.
>
Only Dronacharya was found there to reclaim Gurudakshina in a rather
stringent way from Ekalabya, and he was CONDEMNED enough for that.
> DG
Havanur
We can flush out the sanctimonious nonsense from recording companies
about how copyright laws were written to enrich the artists. To me the
question is what and how much are our musicians losing as a result of
such copyright violation, if indeed it can be called that. Somebody
makes an official or unofficial recording of a live concert and puts
it up in a corner of the www. Word gets around, links are posted and
those who regularly search for that sort of thing will find download
it. How many? May be hundreds. What will the artist lose? None of the
downloaders will miss the opportunity to attend the next concert
because they have the previous one in their ipod. In fact there may be
some who get introduced to the artist/s in question and might become
new fans. Some loss may occur because, let us say I want to get hold
of raga A performed by this artist and might have bought the studio
recorded version, but will not do so now. Such loss is minimal - I can
after all listen to it online for free and buy it as a separate track.
The artist would lose his 10% peanuts for the track but that would be
more than made up by the new fans and greater exposure.
Havanur
C Parthapratim
Exactly! Couldn't agree more. This is the whole point about about
music and Internet, too.
Partha
Vishwaroopa Sharma
>
> > Before quoting any scriptures of India, it must also be noted that
> > Indian thought has never nurtured the concept
>
> So the scriptures are not part of what you call "culture", eh? Were
> you refering to bacteria in yogurt when you said "culture"?
I cannot help your predetermined conclusions. And I don't answer these
unnecessary incisions.
> Each suukta in Rigveda bears the name of its Rishi, so the concept of
> authorship has existed in India for long.
Agree. Who denies the authorship of *artiste* X to some performance?
We know Kalidasa had written Meghadoota and many people have read it
and published it in all possible ways. We have something called as ऋषि
ऋण. And no copyright which is prevailing today. It is many a times
documented that many copies of great works of poets were made and
distributed. And poets too considered it a pride. Nobody in our
culture sent a legal notice.
> The Ganapati
> Atharvashiirsha carries with it this notice:restricting copying:
> इदमथर्वशीर्षम_ अशिष्याय न देयम_ | यो यदि मोहाद्दास्यति स पापीयान_
> भवति |
It is crystal clear that either you don't know what the lines mean or
misquoting the text in your support. Tell me what is meant by
Ashishya? And prove it how an art lover becomes an Ashishya? It is
actually meaning otherwise to your discomfort! It is a warning to such
artistes (who claim their grand discipleship) and commercialise it to
earn money. The second line strictly warns that such a disciple
becomes a Papi!
> And payments for the transfer of Intellectual property (in the form of
> Gurudakshina) are made by several characters of the Mahabharata.
HA HA HA HA! It is the ***DISCIPLE*** who should be bothered about
Gurudakshina; not a Sahrudaya. And you know what, the very same
scriptures tell how an ideal guru should be. Remember the Gurudakshina
is a token of respect and not a remuneration. In any case it is a
matter between a guru and his disciple. It is thus *interesting* to
note how you are connecting the disjoint events by a poor logic. Of
course we don't have any comments on your understanding.
Partha said it much more clearly. These art sellers never pay any
loyalty for those who invented the raga who wrote the composition who
invented the instruments etc. they take all such precious things for
granted, only for the reason that nobody would sue them for such
activities.
I truly respect one's "legal rights". But when one amalgamates
business with the grandeur of culture, I refute. There is absolutely
no problem in being art sellers. Anyway it is a right and duty of a
trader to protect his commodities.
अश्वमित्रः
> Each suukta in Rigveda bears the name of its Rishi, so the concept of
> authorship has existed in India for long. The Ganapati
> Atharvashiirsha carries with it this notice:restricting copying:
>
> इदमथर्वशीर्षम_ अशिष्याय न देयम_ | यो यदि मोहाद्दास्यति स पापीयान_
> भवति |
This is really pushing it. A copyright notice? Bizarre. अशिष्य, one
who is not to be instructed. The concept of intellectual property
existed, but this is not a very good example of it.
अश्वमित्रः
> It is crystal clear that either you don't know what the lines mean or
> misquoting the text in your support. Tell me what is meant by
> Ashishya? And prove it how an art lover becomes an Ashishya? It is
> actually meaning otherwise to your discomfort! It is a warning to such
> artistes (who claim their grand discipleship) and commercialise it to
> earn money. The second line strictly warns that such a disciple
> becomes a Papi!
तथैव|
Warren
On a less exalted level that is perhaps more connected to musical
traditions, one is reminded of the practice of certain gharanedaar
musicians who would either mumble their antaras or substitute false
texts when they suspected musicians from rival traditions were in the
audience.
This strikes me as analogous to the nonexistent streets used by
map companies as ways of determining the original authorship
of a particular regional map.
It is significant that the issue of intellectual property in the
musical
situation is entirely orthgonal to any hint of commerce. The *value*
of the material lies in its authenticity and in its rarity, not in any
artifactual potential it may have.
WS
PK
been the original source :-)
The second rule is to never to confront the artist with the bootlegged
copy -- some get offended. Smarter one actually get amused, since
they are getting free publicity........
- PK
Shree
bootlegging is done via file-sharing over the WobblyWobblyWobbly.
Some cunning plans in the UK about finding file-sharing offenders :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8366255.stm
followed by some online bitching about this news :
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
--Shree
Manohar
In one of the concerts great Mehdi Hassan openly allowed any one
trying to record. He also told them he was going to sing old and new
stuff so go ahead and record.
I don not know if if it really hurts the artist financially. Looks
like there is not so much of money generated by the recording
companies ( for the artists). To give an example Mukul got just about
six thousand Rs for his cds. The idea of sale of his music
electronically came due to this fact. If you all remember we generated
about 60000 Rs. Most of it was from this group.
I think the artists could do something like we did here.
M
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> trying to record. He also told them he was going to sing old and new
> stuff so go ahead and record.
Ah! That's the artiste's spirit!
> If you all remember we generated
> about 60000 Rs. Most of it was from this group.
Manohar ji, can you please brief me / give me the link about this
endeavour?
Manohar
This is no more available now as Mukul is not in good shape. Also any
money he gets goes down the bottle. The music was available to any one
who paid on paypal and I sent the music electronically. Often many got
the music in few mins.
As a matter of fact many artists should do what I did and throw out
the middle men who take away most of money generated.
If you ask me the artists should have no problem in allowing the
listeners to record. It can produce a good fan club. In any case many
do record. The quality of music recorded does not have much of sale
value in any case.
I remember Mr. Gajananrao Watwe was very scared to record his music
whth HMV . He was worried about his concert crowd diminishing. On the
contrary when the records came in the market he started having a full
hall.
M
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> listeners to record. It can produce a good fan club.
Yes, of course!
As an aside we have/had a whole lot of musicians who secured their
music from microphones and recording media. Alladiya and his sons, a
few Dagars, Kesarbai Kerkar, Smt. Annapoorna Devi etc. I don't see any
valid point for that concealment.