TRAI consultation paper on Television Ratings

On a reference from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the TRAI has issued a consultation paper on “Policy guidelines for Television Audience Measurement (TAM) and Television Rating Points (TRPs)”.

Excerpts from the paper:

Television Audience Measurement (TAM)/ Television Rating Points (TRPs) have been in existence in India since 1993. Largely of interest to advertisers, broadcasters and media agencies who invest substantial amounts based on the ratings services; they have come up for greater public scrutiny only now; although concerns about their reliability had been expressed earlier as well. The advertisers’ decisions, programme scheduling and even programs available to the public are all affected by the ratings based on a small sample. Viewer’s likes and dislikes and interests largely remain unaddressed. Given the implications on scope, schedule and even content of programmes, the larger perspective of audience cannot be ignored. The impact of the visual media and its ever increasing reach and significant amounts riding on it, has necessitated a re-look at the issues like reliability, comprehensiveness and accountability of ratings.

Reliability of audience measurement reports both from the perspective of viewers and competitive relations between broadcasters have been of concern to the Regulators in most countries. Internationally, countries have largely come up with self-governing, not-for-profit institutions drawing membership from both advertisers and broadcasters that are responsible for, inter- alia, administering a reliable system of accreditation for broadcast audience measurement services. Ratings agencies are not allowed to be members of such bodies. Should this model be followed in our country as well; should there be an oversight body or should the TRP ratings and rating agencies be governed by some Standards prescribed and monitored by the regulating bodies?

The following issues have been raised for consultation:

5.1 Looking at the impact of Television Rating Points (TRP) on broadcasters, advertising agencies and advertisers, the first and foremost issue that arises for consultation is whether there is at all a need for the Government to regulate the system of Television Rating Points (TRP), or whether this should be left to be decided by industry initiative for the growth of the rating services? Please give reasons in support of your reply.
5.2 If it is felt that Governmental regulation is necessary, what should be the manner and extent of such regulation i.e. whether the rating agencies and or Oversight Bodies be subjected to light supervision or should they be brought under compulsory reporting obligations? Should it be a simple registration or any other mechanism? Please give suggestions on following issues, among others:
5.2.1 The eligibility criterion for registration in terms of technical capability/experience,
5.2.2 The minimum sample size (in terms of numbers) adequately representing various genre, regions, platforms, stratum etc. ensuring robust television viewing estimate;
5.2.3 Type of equipment to be used to address the different delivery platforms.
5.2.4 Whether technology adopted should be real time system for generation of reports;
5.2.5 Minimum coverage required a) over different platforms, b) rural and urban, c) All states including North-East and J&K, d) Prasar Bharati channels;
5.2.6 What are your views on restrictions on crossholding / interests between the Ratings Agencies and their clients?
5.2.7 What safeguards should be provided to ensure secrecy of sampled families? Please give your suggestions.
5.2.8 Whether some standards/norms be prescribed for the rating agencies that should be followed for their operations? If so, what should be those standards/norms?
5.2.9 What are your views on mandatory audits to be performed by independent auditors for validation of ratings provided by rating agencies? What should be their qualifications? What should be the scope of such audit, and who should the auditors report to?
5.3 If it is felt that this should be left to be decided by industry initiative, what should be the framework for such arrangement and the role of the Government with reference to the issues narrated from 5.2.1 to 5.2.9.
5.4 What are your suggestions to encourage competition in rating services?
5.5 Do you have any other suggestions for making ratings more representative, transparent and reliable?

Comments are due before 21 April 2008.

DoT Vs. Blackberry – Round 2 – FIGHT!

The DoT on Friday has reportedly given two weeks to Research in Mobile (RIM) – the company that has developed Blackberry – to install servers and requisite equipment in India in order to tap e-mails sent through the service.

This was the message conveyed to the RIM representative in the country at a high level meeting in the department of telecommunications (DoT), which was chaired by the deputy director general (access services).

Officials from the ministry of home and representatives of Airtel, Vodafone, Reliance and Blackberry were also present in the meeting. The deadline for setting up this facility will be decided in a meeting scheduled next week, when high level officials of RIM from Canada will be present.

And also

RIM is currently operating services in 13 countries around the world. The present problem with Blackberry came to limelight when Tata Teleservices was not granted permission to operate the services. The government said that it was not possible to lawfully intercept e-mails sent through Blackberry phones. It is not yet clear how other operators like Reliance, Airtel and Vodafone are operating the services.

It is not clear. Not clear at all. The DoT website does not list any of these three as having obtained a UMS license. Does the ISP license imply a UMS license? Clearly not – since a UMS license requires a licensee to obtain, in addition, an ISP license.

So what happens next?More meetings.

Another meeting with RIM officials has been scheduled next week to discuss the issue further. In today’s meeting only a local sales representative of the company was present. “These are high level technical issues and hence the DoT officials today asked RIM representative to bring senior technical officials from Canada preferably by 2nd or 3rd of April for the next meeting,” said the industry representative.

“Malabar Monsooned” coffee from Kerala to get GI status soon

Just parking this news item from the Hindu

KOCHI: Malabar Monsooned coffee, a speciality item from the northern Kerala coast, which had conquered the palates of the western world is all set to achieve another landmark when the Geographical Indicator (GI) status would be conferred on it soon.

The Coffee Board officials have already conducted a couple of sittings and it is a matter of time before GI status is given to ‘Malabar Monsooned’ coffee, sources in Aspinwall & Co, which has a market share of nearly 50 per cent of this export commodity, told The Hindu here on Thursday.

This speciality coffee has an interesting genesis, and is cured by the unique monsoon rains of the Malabar coast. What makes it stand apart from its peers is definitive characteristics such as ‘good body, mild acidity, pleasant aroma and flavour.’

A much-sought after item in the Scandinavian countries, with a smattering of followers in Germany, the coffee has many ‘pretenders’ who copycat its qualities mainly in Italy and in the Indonesian coffee production centres.

Reading the tea leaves,

Producers in northern Kerala and the south Karnataka region mainly hope that the attainment of GI status would usher in a premium to the product that could help in withstanding the volatile fluctuations in the international coffee markets.

Malabar Monsooned has an interesting history.

During the olden days, when coffee from the Malabar coast were transported in sailing ships, the damp environment in the wooden holds of the ships significantly altered the physiological nature of the beans.

The coffee beans lost is colour and quality within the six-month period of journey in the sailing ships.

However the consumers in the West, developed a taste for the coffee that was mellow and less acidic. They started complaining about the taste when the coffee was later shipped in the good holds of the steam ships. .

© Copyright 2000 – 2008 The Hindu

Asli Nakli

There’s been a slew of interesting OriginalFake court rulings over the last few days:

• The Supreme Court has held that only licensed allopathic manufacturers can sell Viagra.. The accused were engaged in the manufacture of supposedly Ayurvedic Ozomen capsules and Ozomen forte which contained quantities of “sildenafil citrate” – one of the primary ingredients of Viagra. Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics which are ‘misbranded, spurious and substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance’.

The AP High Court had quashed the proceedings holding that the Drugs Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had no jurisdiction to launch prosecution under Section 32 of the Act (which deals with offences pertaining to Ayurvedic drugs).The Supreme Court held that this was not a case of an Ayurvedic drug, but clearly one involving an allopathic drug which was sought to be passed off as Ayurvedic.

• In M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR, the Supreme Court held that a company cannot be blamed and found guilty of misbranding a food article if the picture on its label has nothing to do with the food article concerned. From the Indian Express news report:

The product in question was soyabean oil and the label, as noticed by the High Court, contained pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which it found “are in no way connected with soyabean oil”.

While the High Court held that this was a case of misbranding, the Supreme Court took an opposite view

“In our opinion, the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food (soyabean oil) was misbranded, since the picture contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question, ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be exaggerating the quality of the food in question.”

• The third case involves the advertisements of a pain balm called Volini manufactured by Ranbaxy which was accused of disparaging its rivals. Business Standard reports:
  

  The Supreme Court today directed Ranbaxy Laboratories to drop the word asli from its advertisement for Volini pain balm but allowed it to run the rest on television despite the protest of the manufacturers of a rival product, Moov.

  The Gujarat High Court had prevented Ranbaxy from running the advertisement which said that its product gives asli aaram while another product shown in purple is thrust away.
  Paras Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of Moov, sued Ranbaxy for disparaging its product. The high court granted an injunction against Ranbaxy. Harish Salve, counsel for Ranbaxy, argued that hyperbole is allowed in a market which is not for the ‘faint-hearted’.

Biodiversity Information System to be created

From the Hindu, the Chairman of the National Biodiversity Authority, Mr. S. Kannaiyan has announced the initiation of steps to create “a Biodiversity Information System, a meta database of biodiversity and bio-resources in the country”

The Union Government has allotted Rs. 10 crore for carrying out a pilot project in this regard.

The system will link all the databases and information sources related to bio-diversity and bio-resources including plant, animal, marine and microbial resources in various parts of the country.

Research scientists, policy makers and common man will be able to get information at a single point after the creation of the system.

Karnataka HC to decide whether free software is stifling competition

In a case that has potentially far reaching implications (always wanted to use that phrase – far reaching implications),”some software companies” have filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging its use of the Nudi software font for egovernance purposes. The Government claims that the software is free and the ” best among the softwares available.”. The Companies on the other hand allege that there is no “scientific basis for the State to prefer Nudi over other compatible softwares” and insist that the Government “prescribe uniform standards for bilingual fonts for developing software in Kannada”.

Is there a scientific basis to prefer free software over proprietary alternatives? Hm.

After some scouting around the web, I’ve stumbled upon some history of the dispute. All is not well, it seems, in the Karnataka Font Development industry. I’m going to use internet sources to try to piece together this sordid saga of hope, suspicion, treachery and betrayal that is the Kannada Font.

Two websites are going to be my primary sources: The Government of Karnataka and some vitriol on a site called Ella Kannadaabhimanigala Antharrashtriya Vedike In (Ekavi)

So it turns out, the Karnataka Government mandates the use of a font called ‘Nudi’ for use in all e-governance projects. The Karnataka Government asserts that this is freeware:

The Karnataka Government owned Kannada Script enabling software NUDI, developed by Kannada Ganaka Parishat, is a freeware. Most of the fonts with NUDI can be used for dynamic font embedding purposes. Since the fonts and the software are available free, these can be used in the no font-embedding situation as well. Regarding R&D, it is a continuing activity to move with the changing technological conditions, mainly so with NUDI. As per the requirements, new features will get implemented in NUDI, of course maintaining compatibility with earlier versions. Futher, it is to be noted that enthusiatic and innovative font developers can develop any number of fonts for NUDI engine using standard software like Fontographer, Fontlab, Font creator etc.

Turns out, Nudi was created by copying a software called Baraha – which it turns out, was a rehashed, pirated – murder most foul! – version of a font called Akruthi. According to this rambling invective on Ekavi, this sinister design was apparently executed by an evil genius/tyrant called ‘VASU of BARAHA’ who is ‘PRIMARILY responsible for all the problems KANNADA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT is facing TODAY’.

VASU has allowed Srinatha Shastry, Narasimha Murthy and Dr. Panditharadhya of Kannada Ganaka Parishat “KGP” to COPY BARAHA Fonts and name it NUDI Fonts and sell NUDI Fonts to Govt. of Karnataka “GoK”. So GoK is using STOLEN PROPERTY and forcing all Departments to use NUDI FONTS. This made other KANNADA SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS to GO OUT of BUSINESS.

Who knew.

NEXT question, we all need to think is,
If BARAHA and NUDI Fonts are being offered FREE like this to KANNADIGAS,
Why BARAHA and NUDI fonts are not in OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM ??? WHY ? WHY ? WHY ? WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

Oh dear.

Copyright in fonts is untested in India and needs a closer look.In the US, in 1998, a federal district court held in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc that copyright law protects “software programs” that create fonts that are distinct typefaces. But the question of originality can still be raised in the Indian context.The artwork involved in fonts is language itself – not something elaborately conceived independently by the developer. ‘Sweat of brow’ alone is not a determinant of copyrightability in India.

More on this later.

Karnataka – Bangalore

Nudi software: court asks Government if uniform standards can be applied

Staff Reporter

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought to know from the State Government why it could not prescribe uniform standards for bilingual fonts for developing software in Kannada.

The court was dealing with a petition by some software companies that had questioned the rationale of the Government going in for Nudi software for e-governance.

They claimed that Nudi is creating a monopoly and stifling competition. They said there is no scientific basis for the State to prefer Nudi over other compatible softwares.

The Government argued that Nudi was a free software and that it was essentially being used by Government departments. It said it was the best among the softwares available.

An official of the Department of e-governance, who was present in the court, said more developed and sophisticated tools are now available. Justice A.S. Bopanna, who is hearing the petition, asked why it could not formulate a uniform bilingual font. He asked the State to look into the suggestion.

© Copyright 2000 – 2008 The Hindu

Govt actually against curbing piracy with policy?

Business Standard reports this extremely startling and welcome assertion, by Asha Swarup, Secretary , Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has apparently rejected the recommendations of the “draft optical disk policy on grounds that it would lead to the creation of a regime of inspectors, and thus go against the grain of the liberalisation policy.”

Acknowledging that the menace of piracy in the entertainment and media industry was huge, she said the problem had to be tackled by closing the gaps in the supply. “A possible way,” she said, “is to release films in ‘C’ and ‘D’ class towns in digital formats.”

A Daniel come to judgment!

In its characteristic presumptuousness, the FICCI is apparently preparing a draft Optical Disc Bill (including a code of regulations for content) which, spares no efforts to curb piracy – if it happens to involve constables breaking down your door at will, to inspect whether you have any pirated cds lying around, then that’s a small price to pay.

I like this Asha.

RTI and clinical trials

Sarah Hiddleton has a useful note today in the Hindu about the Right to Information and Clinical trials in which she discusses how disclosure of test data is in the public interest. This is against the backdrop of the Mahyco/Greenpeace fight over Bt Brinjal test data currently being fought in the Delhi High Court. Some useful international comparisons in the article which make it a compelling read.

The question therefore is this: when does public interest in trial data outweigh commercial interest?

If the researchers had not gone to such lengths to obtain full data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the freedom of information act, we would never have known that published data available to the scientific community had not included significant information from unfavourable trials (nine of these were refused by the FDA, data from four of them were obtained from a company website). We would have also been ignorant of the fact that the FDA had not spotted data manipulations from which conclusions were drawn and approved the drug on that basis. Nor would we have known that the companies involved had breached the trust of those who underwent the trials, the doctors who prescribed the medicines, and the patients who took them. Nor that these companies have made massive profits for something that has not stood up in the trials.

What if a product was found not just to be ineffective, but harmful? Just 10 days after Kirsch’s results were published, GlaxoSmithKline was found to have withheld clinical trial data from the United Kingdom regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA), that showed that its anti depressant increased the risk of suicide among teenagers, and that it had known this since 1998.

Does putting such data in the public domain affect a company’s commercial interest: Yes. But does the public interest outweigh this? Yes, because if the product is useless or harmful, there should be no commerce in it in the first place.

Companies claiming that this might affect their intellectual property would do well to remember that this is at the core of the a defined set of criteria through which society gives up its fundamental immediate right to health to grant a right to property. A patent, which gives a company a monopoly in recognition of the risks it undertakes in product development, is awarded if a product is new, involves an inventive step, and has an industrial application – in other words if it is useful.

A very long time ago, I wrote this article on Data Protection that has since been quoted somewhat widely. Has some useful information on clinical trials, although my position is opposite to what is stated in the article.

GI registration for crop varieties

The Hindu reports today that the Karnataka Government is seeking GI registratino for 21 crops in addition to 9 crops that it has already registered.

The crops for which the Geographical Indication tag is sought are: Byadagi Chilli, Devanahalli Chakkota, Kamalapura Red Banana, Sagar Appe Midi Mango, Mattu Gulla Brinjal, Bangalore Rose Onion, Totapuri Mango, Bangalore Blue Grapes and Janagere Jackfruit.

Why?

Mr. Ganeshan said the Horticulture Department wanted to create a brand value to the unique crops of the State through GI registration. This would go a long way in getting remunerative prices to farmers, especially in the international market, he said.

What else?

Karnataka is leading other States in getting GI tags for its crops as six out of the 10 crops in the country for which GI tag has been provided are from the State.

Like a race.

See my previous post and Icommons article on Cultural and Biological Heritage and IP.

DoT issues 15 day ultimatum to Blackberry service providers

The Blackberry controversy drags on with the DoT issuing a fifteen day ultimatum to telecom companies to put in place a suitable wiretapping system. The Business Standard article linked to above suggests that before Tata, other operators may not have specifically applied for and obtained a license to specifically introduce Blackberry devices.

The Blackberry service corresponds to the description of a Unified Messaging System – the license for which bars bulk encryption without placing a specific limit of 40 bits or otherwise. (However, UMS providers are required to obtain an ISP license as well, and so the 40 bit restriction is inherited). The DoT website has a list of UMS licensees which does not include any of the Blackberry providers.

What is a UMS?
“UMS shall have the ability to record, send and process Voice, Fax and E-Mail messages of subscribers. The terms “Message” in the document shall collectively indicate Voice, Fax and E-mail unless otherwise indicate. The system shall consist of Voice Processing sub-system, Storage sub-system (for voice, fax and e-mail), and Network Interfaces and Maintenance sub-system.

The objective of UMS is to allow subscribers to send, retrieve and manage messages in a uniform way, regardless of whether the message is a voice mail, a fax mail or an e-mail. In addition it shall be possible to manage the messages from various terminal types including phones, web browsers, standard e-mail clients and WAP terminals.”

I think this controversy has more to do with the existence of bulk/block encryption itself at a network-wide level, rather than at the individual user leve. Bulk encryption is forbidden for use by the “Licensee” under both the ISP and the UMS licenses. Individuals are given some relaxation on this rule and permitted to use encryption not-exceeding 40 bits and they may apply for a relaxation of this rule. However, ISPs themselves are not permitted any leeway and no mechanism exists even to apply for a relaxation.

So what’s going to happen?