A List of Caveats
The Truth – Can You Believe this Blog?
If I am not mistaken H.G Wells said that 75% of the things he said in interviews are not true. In my case I would say I am better than him – I say that 45% of the things I say in this blog may not be true. So 55% of the contents in this blog is true.
So what are the true things that I say and what are the untruths? I let readers judge by themselves what is true what is untrue.
One of the untrue things I say is – my name is Guru Maha Graha. Obviously this is not my true name. In this blog I would like to be anonymous.
Images and Pictures
Another caveat is about the use of images from internet. In this blog, I use a lot of images taken from other internet sites.
In such instances I will acknowledge the source by providing direct links in the picture credit. Also I will explicitly mention where I get that particular image by providing picture credits indicating the gallery and the main source from that picture was taken. In addition I may also mention it explicitly like such and such pictures are taken from such and such site.
In my opinion the key issue regarding intellectual property is the intangible idea and creative work which underlies that particular photo. In other words it is not about the photo or picture, but rather it is about the creative effort behind that photo. As such by giving a proper credit to these photos, I am not in any way stealing them. This is the basic foundation of the laws regarding intellectual property rights.
Of course many would disagree. I happen to be aware of the debate about infringement of copy-rights in the internet. I regularly surf forums and websites in which issues surrounding copy-right and intellectual property are hotly debated. From my observations, these debate never seem to end.
In view of these debates, I take a simple view – acting in good faith:
I will use images from the internet. This will be done by providing proper credits. Links to the source(s) of the pictures will be provided. I will not say that these pictures are mine. And I will not use these pictures to obtain commercial benefits.
If in any way readers who happen to be copy-right holders of the pictures are offended – please drop a line in that particular post.
Now, in saying that, I would like to take note (or tell) to those people who post “personal” pictures in their websites, and then got angry when someone re-post their pictures in other websites. Have you ever thought that by posting your pictures in the internet, you are making them public? If these people are so concerned about others “taking” their photos, then don’t ever post these photos in the internet.
In my case I think I am acting as courteous as possible by acknowledging that I have taken the photos from such and such sites, by providing a direct link to the website in which the photos were taken. In all instances I never claim that the images are mine. If you don’t believe me, then I can’t say anything.
Nevertheless, I may want to know the identity of the cyber-identity who claim to be copy-right holders of those pictures. As some readers may have known, one can never be sure of the true identity of the cyber-identities who give comments claiming that they are the copy-right holders of such and such pictures. Yes, the IP address can be obtained. But then the true identity is still uknown. In this regard, people should send me an e-mail. It is only after determining that you are the real copy-right holder of that picture(s) that I will take action accordingly. Of course this means that you have to correspond to me for a number of times, at least until I am sure that you are the real copyright holder. Now, I have to emphasize that I will only ask for the true identity if I suspect malicious or abusive comments. If the request to take down pictures are given in full decorum and courtesy, I will obligingly take down those pictures without question. But if the requests are done in abusive or in threatening language, then I would demand that the requester prove that (s)he is the copyright holder of those pictures.
In other cases, if people were to say that they are copy-right holders of those pictures, they have to do more than that. The reasons and situations when these are applicable are explained below:
Who are the Real Copy-Right Holders?
I post many pictures that are generally regarded as entertainment pictures. Many of these pictures are also posted in other numerous entertainment sites. These are: www.myhotboard.com/ , www.masalatalk.com/masalaboard/ , ragalahari, telugustyle, idlebrain, moviemirror, mahiram and many more.
In many instances these pictures have been re-cycled i.e. posted in various other websites other than the original websites. In many instances, these pictures have been re-cycled over and over again. In some cases one may trace back the pictures to their original websites. But in many other instances, one may have doubts about who really took those pictures in the first instance.
For example I have in seen a picture of actress S on website A; this picture has been watermarked. But I also seen the same picture of actress S on website B; but with a different watermark. In all websites A & B, they each claim copy-right to those pictures. But who is the real copy-right holder?
In instances of these re-cycled postings by different websites of the same pictures, who are the real copyright holders?
Another example of re-cycled pictures is illustrated here. For example just go over the Masala Board website or the Bollyarm website and even Myhotboard website (this site in the time of writing is defunct): You will see forumers in that site posting pictures taken from Ragalahari, Kollywoodtoday, Idlebrain, Moviemirror etc, etc.
And of course, throughout the internet, there are so many other forums which contains re-cycled pictures.
In this case it would be unfair to ask me to take down the pictures. Why only target me, as they are hundreds of other blogs, sites and forum threads that use these re-cycled pictures.
The Never-Ending Debate on Intellectual Property
Obviously, there are other additional implications from these situations. One of the issues I wish to highlight here is about the different opinions on this issue. There are two basic opposing points of view here. The first is that people can only see and enjoy the images, but they can’t take it. Another is that if the image is in the internet, then viewers can take it. This view is further supported by the fact that the internet browser store images in a ‘temporary folder, which can be accessed later i.e. when the user works ‘offline’. So if you have browse it then that image has already been stored somewhere in your computer or network server.
Now my point of view is that the key issue is not about the images or pictures or files etc, but rather about intellectual property. If we acknowledge that such and such pictures are the works by such and such person, then we are not stealing from them, as long as we do not derive financial benefits from the use of such photos. Intellectual property is intangible!
Obviously, there are several other additional implications from these situations. These implications are quite long and too complicated to be shown here. Interested readers can browse the internet to find lively debates about this issue. And if they wish, interested readers may discuss this issue among themselves or they may discuss with me.
Responsibility of Commenters
I would like to think myself as a responsible blogger. Also I would like to think myself as an independent blogger with no affiliation to any political organizations or groupings. In this blog, all types of opinions are welcomed.
However, the opinions expressed by commenters in the comment sections in each blog-postings will be the responsibility of the commenters themselves.
Nevertheless, I encourage commenters to be responsible in giving comments.
This caveat is particularly relevant to those living in Malaysia. As I understood, i.e. from reading Jeff Ooi’s explanation here – in Think before you leave your commentary, the Malaysian authorities can be strict to those who use “obscene, blasphemous, racial or overtly threatening, including the use of partial words or phrases where the intent is clearly offensive…”. I also understand that in general, the definition of what is “obscene, blasphemous, racial or overtly threatening” etc is determined by the authorities themselves.
So there you go. I don’t want any commenter in this blog to get into trouble for the comments that they post. Blogs are supposed to be an avenue to develop our minds and writing skills, not to be a place where people can get into trouble. So commenters (especially those in Malaysia) take heed and be responsible for your own sake.
Cyber Bullying and Threats
I will not tolerate instances or comments which are of threatening in nature. In some instances, these comments will be deleted. In other instances, I may make fun of them in the form of having a post to discuss such comments. Ultimately the decision regarding threatening comments depends on me.
Since this blog is mine, I have the ultimate right to edit and even delete each and every comment without any reasons. This should be obvious.
In general I will let comments to be aired freely. However, if the commenter (from the same IP address) posted comments that involves the use or allusions of threats (of any kind) to me, then I will delete all comments from that particular IP address.
This page will be updated with other caveats or be revised from time to time as the need arises.