Oh my gosh! This is Gross! No! Sorry, Goose!

Here is a chat  IBN-a-live says:
"XXXXX:Irresponsible Freedom of Expression by Individuals or Media should be routed, what's your views?  
Goose: Depends on what you mean by irresponsible! But if you're referring to the KannadaPrabha publication then yes, I think its a severe infringement of copyright that they published an article by taslima without seeking her permission first." (Emphasis mine)
http://features.ibnlive.in.com/chat/view/354.html

Now this is what the acts say about translation:


Copyright Act 1957, India (14, 5)
===================================================================
"For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right
subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect
of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:-
....
(v) to make any translation of the work;
...."

"..... (2) Before making an application under sub-section (1), the applicant shall publish his proposal in
one issue of a daily newspaper in the English language having circulation in the major part of the
country and where the application is for the publication of a translation in any language, also in one
issue of any daily newspaper in that language....."

"32.Licence to produce and publish translations.- (1) Any person may apply to the Copyright
Board for a licence to produce and publish a translation of a literary or dramatic work in any
language 2[after a period of seven years from the first publication of the work]."
===================================================================

Now observe these.
1) Copyright infringement is Copyright infringement and not "Irresponsible Freedom of Expression".
2) The translator has to get the permission. i.e Sindhu the author.
3) We do not know if Kannada Prabha has permision.

But what is clear is Goose bending backwards to say that an article that Kannada Prabha said was printed in some magazines already which criticises Muslim costumes is "irresponsible". But painting Hindu GODs nude is "responsible" art and it is supposed to be provocative!! Only comprehensible to "people with secular bent" mind and Goose types.

Another gem is here:
"

XXX:Sagarika, Why is that always when anything comes to degrading Hindusim it is craetive freedom, when it comes to minorities it hurting sentiments, Eg, Da Vinci Code Movie being banned, Danish Cartoonist being condemned, lately arresting the oublisher of the Text book. Would expect a reply madam

Goose: Not sure thats true. But perhaps there are not the kinds of absolute restrictions and bans in Hinduism as there are in other religions. Thats the great strength, diversity and beauty of Hinduism, that its so decentralised, so much a spiritual union between individual and god without a rigid church or a set congregational mode of worship. The diktats of HInduism on art and literature are certainly unclear, and vary froms ect to sect and region to region. ..... .Look at Mirabai--the royal princess who sang openly about her love for krishna--not sure if such a thing would be permissable in other more disciplinarian faiths.

"

This is like saying "you are so great so let us abuse you". Or because Hinduism is not like Islam or Christianity you can cook up your own definition and do anything you want. Does not codifying mean no one has sentiments?

More importantly depicting nude Hindu GODs is not a religious issue!! Yes. This is a social issue where icons of a community are being insulted. This is provocative pornography. How would Goose and Turdesai respond if their nude picture is published? Will that be religious issue? Just because public icons do not have "self" of owners, it does not mean any one can insult them. It does not hurt my religious sentiments becasue I am not religious rather it insults and smacks civil indecency.


Oh my gosh! This is Goose, no, sorry gross.