"Removal of English Language Comprehension Skills section from UPSC Prilims Examination"

 अनुश्रुत                                                    AnuZ ruta

                               This is summary of discussion conducted by AnuZruta: the IIT Law                                School  Knowledge club, which is students' initiative in Rajiv                                          Gandhi School of  Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur.

Removal of English Language comprehension skills section from the UPSC Prelims Examination has been the subject of continuous debates over the past some time. The team of AnuZruta organised an open discussion on the same where every member put forward their views and gave new dimensions to this issue.

A section of the members sided with the UPSC candidates stating that English was not really necessary when contemplating the aptitude of an eligible student. Stating how the aptitude of a person does not depend merely on his language skills, the members argued that the onus should be on providing an equal opportunity to all, in which the English language can prove to be a hindrance. Members also pointed out that at the end of the day majority of the Indian population is Hindi-speaking, instead of English. In fact, interpreters could be used to act as intermediaries wherever and whenever communication issues arise. Members even gave examples of their personal experiences, and justified that English was not needed for IAS officers posted in rural areas.

At the same time, there were enough supporters of the view that English is a link language and hence, should be included in all major examinations when forming the administration of our country. Giving examples of how Patent claims, lawyers claims, official gazettes etc were written primarily in English, the members debated that in the era of globalization the importance of English can never be understated.  CSAT tests the knowledge of a candidate related to basic science and general knowledge, and English too should be compulsorily included as a basis level. To counter the statistic that India includes major Hindi-speaking population, these members proved how majority of these candidates opt for an English-medium paper.

In the end, all members put forward some common solutions to this row. All agreed that the UPSC examination should be language neutral and a thorough survey should be conducted to propose a new format of the exam. A common consensus was drawn to harmonize the standard of English language taught in different states/boards so as to give equal opportunity to all. It was also suggested that the course and the exam could be segregated to test the English proficiency according to the requirement of that candidate needing to know the language.   

   

Team AnuZruta,

Rajiv Gandhi School Of Intellectual Property Law,

IIT-KGP, Kharagpur.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Public performance or not.!!

 Author : Shweta Khurana, 2nd Year student of RGSOIPL, IIT Law School.

Is the evolution and interpretation of laws lagging behind the technological advancements? The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. 573 US 2014 implies so. The ruling observes that the retransmission of programs to the paid subscribers without the copyright owner’s authorisation or license is violative of the copyright law. The case raises the question of liability of the companies that offer the subscribers the ability to watch and record local broadcast television over the internet on payment at monthly basis. The US Supreme Court rejecting the respondent’s contentions as to their retransmission activity not coming within the meaning of “public performance” pointed out that such service was a tool or way to avoid being held liable for copyright infringement.

Analysing the judgement, if we look into the technology to get a clearer view as to the service in dispute being within the meaning of “public performance” the said service allows all the paid subscribers to watch programs airing on network television or record programs that will air in the future over the Internet.  The service provides three-in-one function as that of a regular television antenna, a recording device, and an application that makes these services work on devices other than televisions and computers. This is enabled by use of thousands of antennas that are distinct for each subscriber and function to capture the local broadcast signals i.e. thus the service bears similarity to modern day cable systems. Pointing to the definition of the public performance under the US Copyright Act, 1976^[1], 17 U.S. Code § 101 states that:

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Interpreting the words of the definition and applying it to the dispute under question, it is noted that Aereo sent each of its subscribers an individualized/ private transmission of a performance from a unique copy of each copyrighted program captured and transmitted through different antennas. Also the servers are subscriber specific and does not involve transmission of performances “to the public,” but rather a number of "private" performances to paying subscribers.

Referring to two similar cases of Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artist Television Inc.^[2] and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.^[3] where the community antenna television (CATV) systems were considered to be outside the purview of ‘public performers’ and these systems were said to be like a viewer rather than a broadcaster as these systems only perform the function of carrying the programs which have already been released to the public by private channels to individual viewers.

Drawing a comparison with the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 as amended in 2012 that gives an expanded definition of “communication to public” under Section 2 (ff)^[4]  so as to include both works and performances (instead of just works as was the case prior to the coming into effect of the 2012 amendments i.e. 'earlier'). Also, the definition now explicitly states that it does not matter whether the communication is ‘simultaneous or at places and times chosen individually’. As such, it appears to include multicasting, narrowcasting and unicasting. The explanation to the aforementioned section helps in understanding the intricacies of the copyrighted works transmitted through satellite or cable transmission so as to be considered within the definition of ‘public performance’. This makes it clear that such a dispute under Indian Jurisdiction would have suffered the same fate, preserving and protecting the broadcaster’s rights ruling out copyright violation on part of the service provider.  

Looking a bit deeper into the issue, one can see the economic and technological implications of this judgment on the new and upcoming technologies like Apple’s iCloud and Dropbox and other cloud computing tools that provide easy online access to stored data, music, pictures and other information via an online platform. It also raises concern as to the affordability issue as the service enabled the viewers or subscribers to watch and record local programs from various electronic devices on a very cheap subscription monthly payment.

So, instead of leaving the judiciary to interpret the law on their own, there is a need to find out such loopholes within the legislation and improvise or evolve the law to keep pace with the leaping technological breakthroughs as a 1976 legislation is not an appropriate legal proposition to be applied in the era of Internet, digital video recorders and smart phones.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

---

[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

[2] 392 U.S. 390 (1968)

[3] 415 U.S. 394 (1974)

[4] "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or

otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing

copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, communication through satellite or cable or any other

means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence including

residential rooms of any hotel or hostel shall be deemed to be communication to the public;

Read More