Communication and Infringement of Copyright: Super cassettes case

ABSTRACT

Cyber-crimes are punished by several laws and even rules created by different agencies. Many cybercrimes are punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). Surprisingly, the IPC and the IT Act share a number of provisions. Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly aiding delivery of property), 468 (forgery with purpose to defraud), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), and 378 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC apply to all cybercrimes. There are other sureties in addition to this. Theft and section 409, which refers to a criminal breach of trust by a public official, banker, merchant, or agent, are not subject to bail.

There is no definition of “cyber-crime” in any law or rule book. Anything having to do with computers, information technology, the Internet, or virtual reality is referred to as “cyber” in colloquial language. It follows that “cyber-crimes” are crimes using computers, information technology, the Internet, and virtual reality, and that there are several laws and even rules that regulate cyber-crimes that have been passed by various authorities to punish. Many cyber- crimes are punished by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and surprisingly, the IPC and the IT Act have several provisions that cross over.

Keywords:  Cyber-law, Internet, Cyber, Intermediaries, Information Technology.

 

INTRODUCTION

The aforementioned scenario involves Myspace, a social media site, and the T-series or super cassettes. A user-generated content website, MySpace Inc. (Appellant), offers a neutral platform for uploading, watching, and sharing music, entertainment, movies, etc. Their primary sources of income are advertisements that are produced using a string of entered keywords and not by the user, but rather by material that the user has found. In order to post content, a user must first sign up and accept the Terms of Service, which make it clear that no content that violates another’s intellectual property (IP) is allowed.

Respondents, The largest music label in India, Super Cassettes Industries Limited, often known as T-Series, has more than 100,000 songs under copyright protection. They do business by selling and granting licences for their copyrighted works in either a physical venue or a virtual environment through Internet service providers (ISPs) and streaming platforms.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The distribution of music and the creation of movies are two businesses in that Super Cassettes Industries is involved. It asserts ownership of a number of audio recordings, motion pictures, music, etc. They also assert that they have 50,000 songs in various regional languages and 20,000 Hindi songs that aren’t from films. This is highly dependent on the plaintiff’s copyright being used, as doing so gives it the financial means to conduct its different commercial operations. The complainant alleges that granting a public performance license, for which they receive a certain sum of money in the form of royalties, violates their copyright. There are two defendants in this lawsuit; the first is MySpace Inc., a social networking and entertainment website with its headquarters in the United States.

Defendant 2 is News Corporation, a branch of Fox Interactive Media, which is the owner of MySpace Inc., Defendant 1, and a borderless online network that offers a range of tools to its users. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants and the plaintiff signed a non-disclosure agreement in 2007, following which the defendants considered acquiring a licence from the plaintiff to show the plaintiff’s copyrighted work.

However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement, and the defendant’s website still featured the plaintiff’s copyrighted content without any of the plaintiff’s licences.

Defendants urged that plaintiffs sign up for their risk management tool programme through email in 2008. On 20.02.2008, the plaintiff issued the defendants a legal notice outlining his rights; on 12.03.2008, the defendants responded to the notice. The defendants claimed in the reply notice that the plaintiff’s copyrighted work had been withdrawn and would not be made available online once again. Despite assurances that the plaintiff’s copyrighted material would not be accessible on their website, the plaintiff discovered in December 2008 that the defendants had not taken it down from their website. Dissatisfied with the defendants’ guarantees, the plaintiff brought the current lawsuit before the Delhi High Court. The same court heard the plaintiff’s request for temporary relief as well.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

*Whether the appellants actually knew of the content that violated section 51(a)(ii) of the 1957 Copyright Act

*Whether the “safe harbour” accorded to intermediaries under Section 79 supersedes the proviso to Section 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

*The compatibility of sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act with section 51 of the Copyright Act.

Section 51 Copyright Act[1]:  When copyright infringed: Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed:

(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act.

(ii) Distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright.

Section 81[2]: Act to have overriding effect: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Section 79[3] of Information Technology Act, 2000:  The said provision will act as safe harbor provisions of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) whereby the liability of the defendants shall be exempted by operation of Section 79 of IT Act, 2000.

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner Argument’s

1. The plaintiff’s first defence was that the defendant violated Section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act of 1957 by exploiting the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without permission or licence. He added that when no royalties are paid, the owner of the material being shared with the public suffers a loss.

2. The alternative argument was that the conduct violated section 51(a)(ii) since it gave users access to web space that constituted a “place,” made communications public, and generated revenue as a result of the violation.

3. The plaintiff described the defendant’s actions as a business model since they allowed them to benefit from all of the advertising they produced alongside the plaintiff’s sound recordings and motion picture works.

4. The Plaintiff argued that because the defendants are violating the law with knowledge and with a good faith belief that their actions would constitute copyright infringement, their actions do not fall within the exemption set out in Section 51(a)(ii) of the Act.

5. As the work was shared with the public by the Defendant without the consent of the work’s owner, the Plaintiff, the act of the Defendant was further stated to be infringing the right of the Plaintiff guaranteed under section 14 of the Copyright Act.

6. They also argued that the defendants’ “notice and take down” alternative did not sufficiently protect against an on-going violation and did not atone for the wrongs committed by the defendants.

7. Further evidence indicated that the Defendant’s actions violated the Plaintiff’’ rights as guaranteed by Section 14 of the Copyright[4] Act because the Defendant shared the work with the general public without the owner of the work, the Plaintiff, giving their consent.

8. They also argued that the “notice and take down” alternative put forward by the defendants does not lessen their wrongdoings and is insufficient insurance against an infringement that happens frequently.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The court lacks the required geographical and personal jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants who are doing business, living, and working for pay in the United States of America, according to the defendant’s first defence.

2. The defendants responded to the plaintiff’s arguments by asserting that the plaintiff is asking for a broad type of injunction, which is illegal under the law because there must be specific acts complained of for an infringement to occur and that the act for which an infringement is provided has not yet been done but will do so with permission.

3. The claim of the plaintiff that there is a distinction between copyright infringement that takes place in the actual or tangible form and acts that are committed online but are not accessible in the physical form was contested.

4. The legal representative also argued that the defendants’ provision of online space to subscribers, which allows them to share media online, constitutes acting as an intermediary within the meaning of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which is legal because there was no specific knowledge that such an act would constitute infringement.

5. Further, it was argued that the Copyright Act and Information Technology Act provisions should be interpreted by the court in a way that preserves the defendants’ immunity from liability while the IT Act operates similarly to the safe harbour provisions of US law.

6. The defendants claimed that the platform on which the information was submitted was a worldwide platform and that it was impossible to monitor every action on the site. As a result, the defendants could not be held responsible for the fact that every piece of content could not be monitored.

7. Furthermore, it was stated that the defendants did not profit financially from the user-generated content.

8. The defendants stipulated that, in order to avoid any sort of objection, they must obtain permission from the user before using, adding to, deleting from, or publicly performing the said content for the purposes of the website. However, this does not require the defendants to obtain permission before making such a communication.

9. The defendant also claimed that they had previously made sure that their website has safeguards in place to get rid of or prevent copyright violations.

The acts of the defendants are those of intermediatory and are protected under the provisions of Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000. The said provision will act as safe harbour provisions of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) whereby the liability of the defendants shall be exempted by operation of Section 79 of IT Act, 2000.

OPINIO JURIS

The rights management tool (RMT), the hash block filter tool, and the Take Down Stay Down tool were all designed to safeguard the artists’ intellectual property on MySpace. Respondents were given the option to generate digital fingerprints for their material using RMT at their discretion. The responders, who largely wanted to transfer the whole task of monitoring the website and sought to disavow responsibility, denied this, though. Due to prior orders, SCIL provided the appellants with a comprehensive list of the songs they own and requested that they remove them without providing the specific URL. Technically speaking, this task was not doable given the volume of data involved.

As arbitrators in accordance with Section 2 (1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, the appellants also claimed protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, which is a safe harbour security for intermediaries. It was emphasised once more that the nature of the advertising income was such that the website’s content had nothing to do with its adverts. In the end, it was argued that the prior order to delete the content was vague and overbroad because it also aimed to forbid future content.

The respondents asserted that the appellant’s business model would breach the other party’s intellectual property, making it damaging. Features like identifiers and tags, it was said, merely served to increase accessibility for others who could observe the defendant’s acts for free. It was argued that MySpace was a resource centre rather than an ISP. The appellants were additionally charged with violating the requirements of section 79 because they started transmission without exercising necessary care.

OBITOR DICTA

The respondents asserted that the appellant’s business model would breach the other party’s intellectual property, making it damaging. Features like identifiers and tags, it was said, merely served to increase accessibility for others who could observe the defendant’s acts for free. It was argued that MySpace was a resource centre rather than an ISP. The appellants were additionally charged with violating the requirements of section 79 because they started transmission without exercising necessary care.

The second topic of debate was whether MySpace would be protected (secure. Harbour) as an arbitrator under the IT Act, 2000, i.e., whether it should be exempted from liability for information, data, or communication links of any third party provided or hosted by the court found that MySpace qualified the definition of very well. It serves as an information portal as a middleman. Using the IT Act of 2000 Reduces guaranteed rights under the Copyright Act in accordance with generally established criteria and without in any way limiting the arbitrator’s authority. It will serve as an affirmative defence to the claim of such exemption under section 79 of the IT Act if the moderator unquestionably complies with There are minimal standards and protections following the breach on its site.

Additionally, Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act, 2000 must be read. to jointly bring both into action. The phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in any law in force for the time being” is the first line of Section 79, which has precedential force. An arbitrator is assured a “safe harbour” if only section 79 conditions of Are being followed, subject to the rules of sub-sections (2) and (3), which implies regardless of whatsoever Other laws.

On the other side, Section 81’s clause specifies that “nothing shall happen in this Act”. restrict anybody from using their rights granted by the Copyright Act or the Patent Act. While the Copyright Act grants and governs the rights of the copyright owner, the meaning of section 79 governs the arbitrator’s liability. Object of the proviso Only those who have patents and copyrights related to Section 41 are permitted to file lawsuits. The IT Act of 2000’s remedies. For the purpose of promoting investment, R&D, and growth in the telecom sector, both the Copyright Act and the IT Act, 2000 should be read together. Middleman only assume responsibility if they themselves submit something that is illegal.

Ratio Decendi

1. When it came to Section 51(a)(ii) infringement, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant’s actions may be seen as prima facie infringing of this legal requirement.
2. The court determined that the subject at hand did not make it obvious whether the defendants had the authority to authorise infringement under Section 51(a)(i), but there was evident awareness on their part of what they were conveying.
3. The defendants were made aware of the plaintiff’s rights when the plaintiff informed the defendants that its content was protected by copyright, according to the court, and they are no longer permitted to act in the same way towards the work for which no permission has been granted. The defendants will be treated as an ordinary infringement under Section 51(a)(i) if they don’t take the requisite action.
4. The plaintiff’s work was prohibited from being modified by the defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, officers, or any other persons acting on their behalf from adding advertisements, logos, or sponsorship to the plaintiff’s work or otherwise generating any profit by uploading it to their website without first confirming the ownership of such work.

The defendants were additionally instructed not to publish such content on their website.

5. In order to prevent future submissions of the plaintiff’s work to the defendant’s space by parties other than those already mentioned, the court ruled that, as soon as the plaintiff learns that any of its copyrighted content is accessible on the defendant’s website, it must provide the defendants with a detailed list of the songs and films that are there, and the defendants must take action to remove it within a week of receiving the notice.
6. The defendants were also required by the court to take steps to independently verify the ownership of and updates to the plaintiff’s work, as well as to take down any infringing or objectionable materials from their websites as soon as they learn that the plaintiff’s work is available on their website.

CONCLUSION

The limits of the internet’s virtual world are ill-defined. While it is true that copyright holders have the freedom to alter, sell, or distribute their works and to prevent infringement, it is crucial in the age of technology that the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act be interpreted in harmony.

Its closure would undoubtedly result from applying strict responsibility to the intermediate sector, especially in cases when the material is this significant and substantial. Given the volume of information broadcast on them, WhatsApp and other social media portals, for instance, would have to shut down their websites and their businesses if they were held accountable for every infringement.

The restriction of the material uploader’s freedom of speech and expression would result from such tight obligation placed on intermediaries. This decision has defined the copyright holder’s position with regard to the intermediaries and provided some protection for their smooth operation.

 

 

[1] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957)

[2] INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000. ACT NO. 21 OF 2000

[3] INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000. ACT NO. 21 OF 2000

[4] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957)

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini