<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
nuff said<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>[SPICY IP] The Death of Safe Harbour for Intermediaries in
India for Copyrigh...</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Amlan Mohanty <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mohanty.amlan@gmail.com"><mohanty.amlan@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mohanty.amlan@gmail.com">mohanty.amlan@gmail.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN"></span></b></div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">Continuing from my <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-safe-harbour-for.html">previous
post</a>, in this post, I will cover the decision of
the court in the case of MySpace v. Super Cassettes and its
reasoning for the
same. I will devote a section specifically to the issue of the
interpretation of S.79 and S.81 of the
IT Act which has a significant bearing on the immunity
available to
intermediaries for hosting content that infringes copyright.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN">DECISION
OF THE COURT</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN">I.<span
style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span
lang="EN-IN">Authorising infringement of works</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court by making a reference to S. 14
and S.51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act,
noted that infringement is the doing of any act, which the
owner of the
work is permitted to do, by any person not authorised to do so
by the owner.
The court noted that ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
act
of authorizing is
something more than
merely providing means with
knowledge and require
further active participation
of the person than that of the
permitting the place for infringement.’ </i>The court made
an important
distinction between the authorisation which would fall within
S.51(a)(i) and
(ii), the latter requiring actual knowledge and reasonable
belief, and the
former involving the participation of the defendant and
exercise of control,
besides knowledge. After going through several English
precedents on this
point, the court found that the question
of authorisation required further proof of participation,
which could only be determined at the trial
stage and hence, refused to deliberate further on the issue of
violation of S.51(a)(i). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC2pZE80lyPn4fXWKZJxAPrPQdy31Lp6a3f4DIHjUgwzHAXn93"
imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC2pZE80lyPn4fXWKZJxAPrPQdy31Lp6a3f4DIHjUgwzHAXn93"
border="0" height="320" width="244"></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal;"><span lang="EN-IN"> </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN">II.<span
style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span
lang="EN-IN">Permitting for profit, a place for
communication of infringing works
to the public</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 0in;
text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court made reference to S.51(a)(ii)
and tried to define the scope of “<i>any place”</i> as
required under the Indian
Copyright Act. It juxtaposed this phrase with “<i>place of
public entertainment</i>”
as used in the UK Copyright
Act, 1956. The court inferred
that this indicated that the India legislature intended to
broaden the scope to
not only include places of public entertainment, but any
other place as well. It also
referenced the later UK Copyright Act, 1988 which repealed
the 1956 Act, which
provides for two kinds of infringements separately, namely “<i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">place
of public entertainment</i>” and
“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">infringement
caused
by use of
an apparatus</i>”. This shows
knowledge of two distinct types, and although the Indian
legislature has not
included the latter, the court reasoned that this meant ‘<i>any
place</i>’ was of
wider amplitude and hence included places on the internet such
as MySpace, and
not just places of entertainment. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 0.25in;
text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align:
justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN">III.<span
style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span
lang="EN-IN">Issue of Knowledge on the part of MySpace</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The knowledge requirement is important in
view of the exception provided for under S.51(a)(ii) of the
Indian Copyright Act which states that there
will be no liability where the defendant ‘<i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">was
not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing</i>’
that the works were
infringing. The court however, completely dismissed the
arguments advanced by
MySpace on several grounds:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">First, it stated that the very fact that
MySpace had developed and installed remedial tools to deal
with infringement
showed that they at least had an apprehension of infringement.
It also dismissed
the claim that this was done, keeping in mind the requirements
under the DMCA,
by observing that the post-infringement curative measures
provided for under
the DMCA are sufficient in the American context, but not in
the Indian legal
sense. Now, I find this to be an incorrect reading of the
Indian law since
S.79(3)(b) of the IT Act makes it very clear that an
intermediary shall not be
held liable if it ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">upon
receiving
actual knowledge, or on being
notified</i>’ of the unlawful material, it <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">’remove[s] or
disable[s] access to that material on that resource
without vitiating the evidence in any manner</i>’. I don’t
see anyone reasonably
arguing that this is not in the form of a post-infringement
remedial measure,
much like the DMCA. Second, the court
goes into the question of ‘actual knowledge’ stating that the
defendants had specific
knowledge of the plaintiff’s works since they were provided a
list of their
titles and updated works from time to time.
Third, the fact that it obtained a license from users to
modify content
to insert ads and such indicated that they had knowledge of
the content of the
works. Fourth, the court found that its India-centric
operations are also a
clear indication of the knowledge of infringement. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">Again, there appear to be some infirmities.
For one, I don’t see how merely having an Indian presence or
focus shows
knowledge of infringing activities. On the point about
attributing knowledge to
them since they insert ads, isn’t is possible that this is an
automated system,
where the ads are placed at the beginning of the video and
there is no one
actually going through the content to flag it as infringing?
Neither does the
court lay down any real standard in respect of the knowledge
requirements,
which is something I really hoped to emerge from this case. No
reference was
made to the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/01/letter-from-amerikat-i-viacom-v-youtube.html">‘red
flag’ test [Viacom v. Youtube]</a> which is particularly
worrisome
since the Intermediary Guidelines under the IT Act provide no
guidance in this
regard either. More importantly, the court failed to lay out
any standards in
respect of the notice and take down requirements. In
dismissing the
post-infringement remedies, it failed to respect the very
basis of dealing with
copyright infringement claims in the age of the Internet. I
find no merit in
the contention that a post-infringement remedy does not make
up for the harm
caused to the rights holder, since we are well aware of
frivolous takedown
notices issued by such companies, and hence a notice and
takedown system serves the
purpose of maintaining the balance of rights holder and user
interests.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-IN">IV.<span
style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span
lang="EN-IN">Interpretation of S.79 and S.81 of the IT Act</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align:
justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court agreed with the view that S.81
acted as a proviso to S.79 and the non-obstante clause
contained therein has an overriding effect.
This implies that although one may satisfy the requirements
under S.79 of the
IT Act that grants immunity to intermediaries, an individual
can still proceed
against the intermediary using provisions of the Copyright Act
or Patents Act. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">As an arguendo, irrespective of this
overriding effect, the court found that the act of
modification of the works,
by inserting ads etc. excluded the defendants from the purview
of S.79(2)(b) of
the Act and hence it failed to satisfy the requirements. It
also remarked that
MySpace failed to exercise due diligence and that it should
have done a ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">preliminary
check in all the cinematograph
works relating Indian titles before communicating the works
to the public
rather than falling
back on post
infringement measures</i>’. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN"><b>The more significant implication of such a
ruling however is that it recognises that the IT Act no
longer protects
intermediaries against copyright infringement claims</b>.
The court observed that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal;">Section 79
is, thus, meant
for all other
internet wrongs wherein
intermediaries may be involved including auctioning,
networking servicing, news dissemination, uploading of
pornographic content but not certainly
relating to the
copyright infringement or
patent infringement which has
been specifically excluded
by way of
proviso to Section
81.”</i> Of course, one cannot really blame the court in
this respect
since the language used in S.81 appears to be clear and a
non-obstante clause
to boot, leaves little by way of interpretive freedom to the
judges. If they had
ruled any differently, I fear they would be charged with
judicial activism and accused
of encroaching on the legislative domain. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court also noted that the
Copyright Act itself grants certain exceptions and an
intermediary could avail
of the same to escape liability. While this is certainly true,
this is also
true of the American system wherein valid defences may be made
against an
infringement claim, and yet, the DMCA grants specific immunity
to
intermediaries for copyright infringement cases. The court
found not only the
DMCA, but the WCT and WPPT to be inapplicable to this case,
even in terms of persuasive
value, which, while understandable to some extent, eliminates
even the
slightest possibility of ensuring that immunities granted to
intermediaries are
uniform across the world. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court also relied on the argument that
reading S.79 to include copyright infringement claims would
create a ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conflict
between the acts of infringement by
way of permitting the place for profit provided under
Section 51 (a) (ii) and
Section 79 which saves the intermediary from liability</i>’.
However, I would
argue that S.51(a)(ii) covers more than just internet
intermediaries and merely
because they are granted additional protection, does not in
itself render
S.51(a)(ii) ineffective or create disharmony.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">The court, in this case, found MySpace
guilty of primary copyright infringement under S.51(a)(ii) and
passed an order restraining
the defendants from dealing with the plaintiff’s works,
including modifying
them, adding advertisements, or making profits from the same,
without enquiring
about the ownership of the works. As regards future works, it
directed MySpace
to delete the works of the plaintiff as and when they are
notified by them. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN">I began this post with the title ‘<i>Death of
safe harbour for intermediaries for copyright infringement</i>’,
but now I wonder
if there was any life to begin with. Perhaps ‘<i>still-born</i>’
would be more
appropriate. For those of us who believe in the rights of the
intermediaries
and were hoping against hope for a favourable interpretation
of the IT Act,
this decisino comes as a crushing blow, and I fear at this
stage, an amendment is the only remaining
option.</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Posted By Amlan Mohanty to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/">SPICY IP</a> at 8/06/2011
09:22:00 PM
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPICY IP" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit this group at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en</a>.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>