Monday, November 10, 2008
It was the very first James Bond movie that I saw in theatre; in the entire series of 22 films. All others were through video cassettes or satellite channels. And I have a DVD of the first Daniel Craig outing, Casino Royale. Unlike the first 21 films, there was just Bond, and his brawn.
Every Bond movie till Die Another Day more or less followed a predictable line: Suave and sexy Bond armed with gadgets and hi-tech car supplied by 'Q'; a mission; an anti-US, all-powerful villain; beautiful girls on each side; steamy scenes; final conflict climaxing in the demolition of the villain and his empire. The producers stuck to this formula from the days of Sean Connery. On-screen Bonds changed five times, from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan, but the formula never faced transition. Casino Royale was one hell of a transformation. And Quantum of Solace, though not as sleek as its predecessor, carries the new look.
A direct sequel to Casino Royale, the film shows Bond taking things personal. He wants to avenge the death of his girlfriend in the prequel. No out-of-the-world gadgets, no supercar. The villain is no terrorist or USSR/North Korean stooge, but an ambitious chairman of a multinational corporation. His object of desire: Water and the millions he aims from selling it from an undiscovered riverbed!
Bond doesn't walk away in style, exercising his licence to kill. He is made answerable to the murders he makes. The villain looks like any regular Hollywood extra, effectively symbolising the vices men have, even with their ordinary looks. And the most important thing: The British secret agent never ever uses the iconic catchphrase "The name's Bond. James Bond." That was the very last dialogue in Casino Royale. In Quantum, the famous bond theme music also comes at the ending, just like in Casino Royale.
Out of all bonds of stylebook, this Bond is down to earth. This Bond is believable.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
me: Busy now?
Berny : hey..!! no... what about u?
me: Work over
Berny : What’s this ‘lost one?’
me: One died
Berny : who??
me: Not an intimate
But of our age
Berny : hmm who’s that?
me: Mithun's friend
He was weeping all evening
Berny : how??
me: Found his body in the bathroom
Berny : god...
me: they say drug abuse
Berny : ohhh
me: this afternoon
Berny : hmm
Mithun came to office today?
Berny : so sad...
me: someone called him up
he called me, we went out,
Berny : OK
me: he wept, called our boss and he left
Berny : so he came to know after he came to the office
I saw this guy once
Berny : hmm...
me: Our age
They say he's the only child
Berny : god...
me: His parents will come tomorrow, I think
Berny : he is in Bangalore, right?
me: Ya, he is
Berny : OK
me: staying here with his friends
Berny : what was he was doing ??
me: Was working, I think
Berny : OK
me: I don't know, Berny
Feeling a bit uneasy
what do they get from dope?
Berny : that's OK man....
me: He had called up Mithun a week before
He had told him he stopped everything
all of a sudden
Berny : after some days ...it goes from our mind....
but the real loss is for his parents..
me: don't know how his roommates will face them
Berny : all that we can do is to pray for them to have the courage to face...
hmm.. I know...
haven’t they informed about his habits to his parents??
me: I don’t think so
Berny : OK...
me: Uneasiness increases thinking about his parents
Berny : you shouldn't get upset...
give courage to Mithun ...
me: WHY DO THEY DO THIS?
Berny : hmm.. it happens....
don’t keep on thinking about it...
just pray... that's what you can do right now...
(Was planning to write something to relieve my frustrated mind. Then she came online. Read the chat after she went offline, and suddenly it seemed a better was to convey the feeling. Even the slightest dose is a key to hell. Life is too precious to play with. Stay away.)
Friday, January 25, 2008
As a medium of unbridled expression of ideas and criticism, blogs were heralded as the ultimate venue to express individual and group ideas. The seemingly independent comments are not that free — blog posts are subject to libel.
Blogs came to the limelight as it helped readers express their comments. Often, comments on the incidents were from the person directly involved or those who witnessed a procedure. Unlike traditional media, the comments were not edited and got feedback from the readers directly. When a blogger, often biased or with lack of right information, publicly offends the interests of a person or firm by churning out posts, he becomes susceptible to defamation charges. Abusive language adds fire to the fury.
Wikipedia has an entire section to list defamation cases against bloggers. "Several cases against bloggers have been brought before the national courts concerning issues of defamation. The courts have returned with mixed verdicts," the page states. According to Blog Herald, there are 1.2 million registered bloggers in India. A study posted in WATBlog.com says 14% of the registered bloggers actively update their blogs with regular posts. Of the 21.4 million net users in India, a staggering 85% (about 18 million people) regularly check blogs, says data compiled by online research solutions consultancy JuxtConsult. Though lesser in number in the global scenario, India has instances where bloggers had to face legal notice for defamatory posts.
Recently, there were reports on an IBM employee Gaurav Sabnis resigning his job, allegedly for a blog post questioning the validity of MBAs offered by IIPM, who was a major user of IBM laptops. The incident had created a flutter among bloggers then, leading to online debates. Reportedly, one of the protesters Varna Sriraman also had to face a warning from the B-school.
Defamation is a baseless statement that is harmful to one’s reputation, and published due to negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation. A publication to one other than the person defamed or a baseless argument concerning the complainant tending to harm his/her reputation must be there to establish a defamation charge.
There are no specific clauses in our law for blogs, but the Information Technology Act-2000 (ITA-2000) recognises electronic documents as equivalent to written ones for the purpose of law. The Indian Evidence Act has also been suitably amended by the ITA-2000 to provide for presentation of evidence of electronic documents or as certified print-outs. Blog posts, being electronic documents regularly posted by the owner of the blog, comes under this ambit.
Cylawcom.org, which lists the legal issues in blogging, says that whether the material published is inappropriate is a matter of interpretation and it has to be seen in the context of the persons who are likely to access the page.
"If the blog is accessible publicly, then we can say that any person including a minor, who is more likely to be depraved or corrupted, may visit the blog and view the same," the website says. "If the blog is accessible only for a group, such as sociologists or criminologists who are studying the impact of Internet on the society, then there is a possibility to argue that the post is for academic discussion among persons who are unlikely to be corrupted."
Truth is a major defence to defamation claims, but truth may be difficult and expensive to prove in the case of bloggers.
Comments in the opinion section of websites or those made in chat rooms might be exempted as opinions. But blogs lack that alibi. Here also, the context matters. You cannot say, "It is my opinion that they made the software after stealing my idea."
Pseudonyms do not help avoid defamation charges, as there are ways to trace the origin of the posts. In the case of Gaurav Sabnis, the complainants were successful in tracking his details although he had hidden his identity.
Another blogger Pradyuman Maheshwari had to shut down his blog Mediaah! after a legal notice, for open criticism against The Times Of India. The complainant was miffed over posts in his blog that criticised the top brass of the firm and its activities, without evidence. This instance also had its share of online discussions, and was featured in many websites advocating freedom for journalism and expression of ideas.
"In a blog, the owner takes on the responsibilities of both the writer and the publisher. To the extent he allows readers to add comments on his blog space, he is like an ‘editor’ of a publication." says Na Vijayashankar, a Bangalore-based e-business consultant and cyber law expert. "He is therefore responsible for defamation both for his own writings and the comments published in his blog space."
The debate on whether bloggers should keep their posts clean of criticism has evoked both moderate and extremist views. Though all agree that a ban on expression is completely undesirable, a majority still advocate for unbridled language. Tim O’Reilly, internet pioneer widely credited with coining the term Web 2.0, had recently come up with a bloggers’ code of conduct, only to face an avalanche of protest from bloggers.
"Many people have written to say that they have no compunctions about deleting unpleasant comments. But I believe that there is a strong undercurrent on the internet that says that anything goes, and any restriction on speech is unacceptable. A lot of people feel intimidated by those who attack them as against free speech if they try to limit unpleasantness," says Tim O’Reilly in his website radar.oreilly.com. "It’s ridiculous to accept on a blog or in a forum speech that would be seen as hooliganism or delinquency if practised in a public space," he adds.
"I don’t think that a universal or national code of conduct is practical. It’s tough to police blogs," says Amit Agarwal, author of Digital Inspirations blog, and wildely regarded in the internet as India’s first professional blogger. "Posts written by an Indian commenting on an incident in Japan in a blog hosted in the US is tough to be nailed under a law. At most, the affected person can demand an apology from the writer, if traced, or ask the service provider to block the blog," he says. "We all agree that speaking ill of others is bad, but framing a strict code of conduct is like tying the hands of the blogger," he adds.
Mr Vijayashankar disagrees with the view. "Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom to defame anybody. The remedy for this should be to educate the bloggers and make them more responsible."
The blog-ban put by the government after the recent bomb blasts in Mumbai highlights the need of a regulatory framework, ideally an association of bloggers. Though the ban was criticised by many, the purpose of checking hate messages and rumours also had many takers.
"Neither a blanket censor nor laissez-faire blogging is desirable. The regulation should ideally be through a ‘self regulatory process,’ where blog owners decide to follow a certain ethics," says Mr Vijayashankar.
The solution lies in the hands of a blogger who bothers to think before he types. Though comments are free, facts are always sacred for every media, even blogs.