CONFERENCE REPORT - NUJS Law Review

NUJS-CUSATCONFERENCECOPYRIGHTAMENDMENTS,2012:AFAIR

BALANCE?(SupportedbytheNUJSLawReview&IPTLS)

AjointeventorganizedbytheMHRDIPChairsattheNationalUniversityofJuridicalSciences(NUJS)andtheCochinUniversityofScienceand

Technology(CUSAT)inassociationwiththeNUJSLawReviewandIPTLS

November27-28,2012NUJS,Kolkata

CONFERENCEREPORT

NUJS-CUSATCONFERENCECOPYRIGHTAMENDMENTS,2012:AFAIRBALANCE?

(SupportedbyNUJSLawReview&IPTLS)

Sponsors MediaPartner2

Theconferenceon‘TheCopyrightAmendments,2012:AFairBalance?’hostedbytheMHRD IP Chairs at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) and theCochinUniversityofScienceandTechnology(CUSAT)inassociationwithNUJSLawReview and Intellectual Property & Technology Law Society (IPTLS)was held inKolkataonNovember27and28,2012.The conference explored the latest amendments to India’s copyright regime,amendments that have far reaching implications for copyright jurisprudence,industry practice and social justice. Aswithmost legal policies, the amendmentsseektobalancevariouscompetinginterestgroups,rangingfromtheentertainmentindustry to disability rights groups. The conference saw the participation ofacademicians, policy makers, IP practitioners, the industry, civil societyorganizations and studentswho brainstormed and reflected on the amendmentsandtheirinterpretativechallenges.The introductory session undertook an overview of the amendments, includingtheirhistory,andthevariousinterestsatstake.PartIoftheconferencedealtwithamendments pertaining to the entertainment sector. Part II dealt with thoseamendmentspertinenttothetechnologysector.PartIII,themostvoluminouspart,dealtwiththevariouscopyrightexceptionsandlimitations.Thelastpartdealtwithcopyrightgovernanceissues,notablycollectingsocietiesandthecopyrightboard.

TheconferenceisjustthestartTheaimoftheconferencewastogeneratepapersonthevariousthemesoutlinedabovewhichwillculminateintoboth:

i) ajournalissue:theSpecialIssueoftheNUJSLawReviewii) abooktobepublishedby thepublishersof theNUJSLawReview,Eastern

BookCompany(EBC).

The bookwill contain expanded versions of the papers in the journal. Edited byProf. Shamnad Basheer, it will be the first comprehensive book to deal with thecopyright amendments. Apart from the value it promises to bring to IPpractitioners, policymakers and students, we aim to produce articles that couldproffer interpretative assistance to courts confronted with litigation in theimmediateaftermathoftheamendments.




SPEAKERPROFILESAbhishekMalhotraAbhishekMalhotra,currentlyapartneratTMTLawPractice, isanadvocatewithover13years of practice with IPR as his primary focus. A graduate of NLSIU, Bangalore, hecompletedhisLLMfromtheFranklinPierceLawCenter,NewHampshire.Mr.Malhotraisalsoenrolledat theCaliforniaStateBarCounciland isamemberof several internationalorganizations including the International Association of Entertainment Lawyers and theInternational Trademark Association. He has provided his inputs to the government onvarious issues in the latest copyright amendments. He has presented papers across theglobeandispresentlyaguestlecturerattheIndianInstituteofInformationTechnology.AchilleForlerAchilleForlerhashadoverthreedecadesofexperienceinthecreativeandcommunicationindustries.Hehasservedasapublicservant (FrenchMinistryofForeignAffairs) for fiveyears.During this timehewas involved in theexecutionofpublicpoliciessuchas :Arte,DVBProject,HighDefinitionTelevisionProject,harmonizationofEuropeancopyrightlaws,etc.In1995,hecreatedIndia'sfirstmusicpublishingcompany,DeepEmotions,whichhasrecentlybeenacquiredbyUniversalMusicPublishing.Healso,co-organisedthefirst“Euro-Asian Symposium on Intellectual Property Rights in the Cultural Industries in Asia Today”(1995,Goa), sponsoredbyWIPOand theEuropeanUnion.Hewas aslo amemberof theTask Force on “Restructuring Transmission Infrastructure of Prasar Bharati” under theChairmanshipofProf.P.V.Indiresan(2000).Withregardtothecopyrightamendments,hewas the official representative of CISAC before the Parliamentary Commission on theCopyrightAmendmentsBill(2011).AmlanMohantyAmlan Mohanty has been a contributor to SpicyIP for nearly 4 years. His key interestsinclude copyright, fair use, software patents, innovation in the technology sector andintellectualpropertyissuesontheinternetandotheremergingtechnologies.HehascloselyfollowedtheCopyright(Amendment)Act,2012andwas invitedtospeakat the 'NationalSeminar on the 2012 Copyright Amendments' at ILS Pune as well as the IV NLS UnionDebate on the current copyright litigation involvingDelhiUniversity.He alsoheaded theresearchteamfromNLSIU,Bangalore thatmadesubmissions to theHRDMinistryontheproposedcopyrightamendmentsandhasvariouslycontributedtoonlinepublicationsandmagazinesonissuesconcerningintellectualproperty.HeiscurrentlytheEditor-in-ChiefoftheIndianJournalofLawandTechnology.AnanthPadmanabhanAnanthPadmanabhanisapracticingadvocateattheMadrasHighCourt.Inthiscapacity,heacts as counsel forvarious sound recording labels and thePhonographicPerformanceofIndiaLtd. (PPL).His recentbookon IntellectualPropertyRights:Infringement&Remedies(LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2012) is the first treatiseon the field in India. Mr.Padmanabhan is an alumnus of NLSIU, Bangalore, where hewon theH.M. Seervai GoldMedal, theBest Essay in Constitutional Law. He was also an editor of theNational LawSchoolofIndiaReview.




Dr.AnirbanMazumdar

Dr. Mazumder, a graduate from Calcutta University, obtained his LL.B. degree from hasBurdwanUniversity.Hewent on to dohis LL.M. fromNLSIU,Bangalore andM. Phil andPh.D. fromNUJS.He specializes in intellectual property law and information technologylaw.Dr.Mazumder,aFellowof theMaxPlank Institute for IntellectualProperty,Munich,has been a visiting scholar at the Touro Law School, New York University and CardiffUniversity. He has also been a Cegla Scholar at the Tel Aviv University, Israel. He is avisiting professor of West Bengal University of Technology, Institute of PharmaceuticalResearch&HealthCareManagement, InstituteofEngineeringandManagement,CalcuttaBusinessSchoolandInternationalManagementInstitute.

AnjumRajabaliAnjumRajabaliwrotehisfirstfilmDrohkaalin1992.HelaterwentontowritescriptsforverypopularmoviessuchasGhulam,TheLegendofBhagatSinghandRaajneeti.In2004,hedesigned and set up India’s first full-fledged screenwriting department at the Film andTelevisionInstituteofIndia,Pune,wherehecontinuestobethehonoraryhead.Since2006,he has been the head of screenwriting at Whistling Woods International, Mumbai. HeregularlyconductsscreenwritingworkshopsinIndiaandabroad.AnactivememberoftheFilmWritersAssociation,heisalsotheConvenorofitsCommitteeonCopyright.ArunC.MohanArunC.Mohan is an advocate at theMadrasHighCourt.He is a graduateof theLondonSchool of Economics and has experience in working on intellectual property andcommercial matters, both in India and internationally. He has worked on variousprominentIPdisputesincludingtheTVSv.Bajajpatentdispute,ConsimInfov.Google,andvarious recent John Doe cases, including the order granted for the Tamil film 3. HeregularlyappearsbeforetheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardandhasparticipatedinarangeofdomesticandinternationalarbitrations.HeisalsoapartofthecorporateteamatMohan Associates, focusing on agreements, disputes and asset management fortechnology-centric companies. He hasworkedwith a diverse set of clients ranging fromleadingindustrymajors,mediaandentertainmentcompanies,governmentalorganizations,academicinstitutionsandseveralmulti-nationalcompanies.Dr.N.S.GopalakrishnanDr.N. S. Gopalakrishnan, is the Professor ofHRDChair on IPR and theDirector of InterUniversityCentre for IPRStudies,CochinUniversityof ScienceandTechnology (CUSAT).HewastheDeanoftheFacultyofLawatKannurUniversity,KeralaandDirectorofSchoolofLegalStudiesCUSAT.Prof.GopalakrishnanpreviouslyworkedasanAdditionalProfessorat NLSIU and has extensively published several research articles on IPR. He has alsorepresentedIndiaonseveraloccasionsbeforetheWIPOandothermultilateraldiplomaticdiscussions.G.R.Raghavender

Mr.RaghavenderisthecurrentRegistrarofCopyrightsandDirector,GovernmentofIndia,Ministry of HumanResourceDevelopment. He studied at theDelhi University and has adegreefromInternationalInstituteofSocialStudies(ISS),[ErasmusUniversity],theHague,theNetherlands.




Dr.MadhukarSinha

AstheRegistrarofCopyrightandaDirectorintheDepartmentofHigherEducationoftheHRDMinistry,Mr.MadhukarSinhawasinstrumentalindraftingmostoftheamendmentsthatwerepassedbytheParliamentwithregardtotheCopyright(Amendment)Act,2012.He was the negotiator for India at WIPO and has also participated in negotiations oneducationservicesattheWTO.HeiscurrentlyaprofessorattheCentreforWTOStudiesandhisareasofresearchincludeTRIPS,GATSandGPA.HeisalsoanexpertonthepaneloftheUNESCO and has been consulted by theUNODC and theWorld Bank.He has been avisitingfacultyforalargenumberofeducationalandtraininginstitutions.HedidhisPh.D.on "Economics of Copyright: The Indian Paradigm" in which he focused on piracy ofcopyright works in India. He also has a post graduate degree in Economics from DelhiSchoolofEconomics andanMBA from theFacultyofManagement Studies,UniversityofDelhi. Mr. Sinha is an officer of the Government of India and has worked in variouscapacitiesoverthelast25years.

PraneshPrakashPraneshPrakashisthePolicyDirectoratCentreforInternetandSociety(CIS)andworkson policy research and advocacy concerning intersections of technology and law. Hefocuses on access to knowledge (primarily copyright reforms), promoting openness(including open government data, open standards, open access, and free/open sourcesoftware), freedomof expression, and privacy and internet governance. In 2012, hewasnominatedasanInternetFreedomFellowbytheUnitedStatesgovernment,inrecognitionofhisworkinpromotingfreedomofspeechandopennessontheInternet.Hisop-edsandarticles have been published inmany national newspapers, including the Times of Indiaand the Indian Express. His work has been quoted in the New York Times, the Hindu,WashingtonPostandnumerousotherpublications.PravinAnandPravinAnandistheManagingPartnerofAnand&Anand.Hegraduatedwithalawdegreein 1979 (New Delhi) and has been practicing as a patent and trademark attorney eversince.Hewascounsel inanumberof landmarkIPcasessuchas therightofprivacycase(BanditQueencase),thedilutionintrademarkscase(Glenfiddichcase),therecognitionofmarket survey evidence by judiciary (the Time Warner case), the domain name case(Yahoo! Case); punitive and exemplary damages (Time Magazine) and the Phishing(NASSCOM)cases.Mr.Anandisaco-authorofthetwovolumesofHalsbury’sLawsofIndiaonIntellectualPropertyandisontheeditorialboardofseveralinternationaljournals.PrashantPandayPrashant Panday is an engineering graduate in Electronics & Communications and hasgraduated from IIM Bangalore.. Mr. Panday is now the Executive Director and CEO ofEntertainmentNetwork(India)Limited(ENIL).HehasbeenatENILsinceAugust2000andhasplayedakeyroleinbringingtheradiorevolutiontoIndia.Overthelast12years ,hehasplayedasignificantrole inmakingRadioMirchithe#1radiobrandinthecountry intermsof listenershipaswell as revenues. In2008,RadioMirchiwas rated the#1mediabrand–aheadofTheTimesofIndiaandStarPlus–intheIMRB-Pitchsurvey.Mr.Pandayhas22yearsofexperience inadvertising,banking,FMCGandMedia.Prior tojoining ENIL, he worked with Citibank, Pepsi, HUL, Mudra & Modi Revlon. His areas of




strength include marketing &sales, analytics &strategy and people management. Mr.PandayisthechairmanoftheFICCIRadiocommitteeandtheSeniorVice-PresidentoftheAssociation of Radio Operators of India (AROI). He is also a member of the MRUCGoverning Board and the FICCI and CII Entertainment Committees. He also served as amemberof theMinistryof I&B’scommitteeon fightingpiracy.He isaspeakeratvariousindustryforums.RajendraKumar

RajendraKumarheadsthetrademarkandcopyrightpracticeofK&SPartners.InadditiontoextensiveexperienceinprosecutionandenforcementofIPRs,hehasexpertiseinTRIPSrelated issues, domain name disputes and intellectual property aspects of theentertainment industry and the Internet. He has assisted the Government of India indevelopinganewlawfortheprotectionofgeographicalindicationsandhasbeeninvolvedintheprotectionofsomeofthecountry’streasuredgeographicalindicationsbothinIndiaand abroad. He has co-authored a seminal work "Geographical Indications -ASearch forIdentity"andservedontheInternationalTrademarkAssociation(INTA)Sub-CommitteeonGeographicalIndicationsfrom2006to2008.Mr.KumargraduatedwithHonorsinEnglish.HeearnedhisMasterofArtsinEnglishin1981.HereceivedhisBachelors’degreeinLawin1984andhasbeenawardedaPostGraduateDiplomabyKing'sCollege,Londononthetopic ‘UnitedKingdom,EuropeanandUnitedStatesLawofCopyrightandRelatedRights'.Further,hesuccessfullycompletedasummercourseoninternationalcopyrightlawattheUniversityofAmsterdam.RajeshDhupadRajeshDhupad is the Joint Secretary of the South IndiaMusic CompaniesAssociation aswellastheCEOofSymphonyRecordingCo.ArenownedsingerintheTamilindustrywithmorethan30musicalbumstohiscredit,heisalsoasuccessfulTamilwriterandcomposer.Apartfromhisillustriouscareerasanartist,hehasalsobeenontheothersideofthetable,asamusicproducerwithmorethan400albumstohisname.Hehasalsobeenadirectoranddabbledincinematographyandediting.PulakBagchiPulak Bagchi handles regulatory affairs, policy & advocacy issues, legislation andgovernance matters besides contracts and litigations. Earlier he has worked with MSMDiscoverywhereheheadedthe legal&regulatoryfunction.Priortothis,heworkedwithVodafoneEssarLtd.Hehas alsobeenapracticingadvocate inCalcuttaHighCourt andapartneratSinghania&Co.LLP.Asa lawyer,Mr.Bagchihasarich,blendedexperienceoflegal&regulatoryaffairsacrossvarioussectors.HehascompletedhisLLB fromCalcuttaUniversity.Prof.SamTaraporevalaDr. Sam Taraporevala is the Director of the Xavier’s Resource Center for the VisuallyChallenged.He isaReaderandHeadof theDepartmentofSociology,St.Xavier’sCollege,Mumbai with nearly two decades of teaching and research experience. He has beenresponsibleforconceptualizing,settingupandrunningtheXRCVCwhichwillplayapivotalrolenotonlyinthelivesofthevisuallychallengedstudentsofthecollegebutalsothelivesofotherpersonssimilarlyplacedacrossthecountry.




Prof.ShamnadBasheerShamnadBasheerjoinedNUJSinNovember2008asthefirstMinistryofHumanResourceDevelopmentChairProfessorinintellectualpropertylaw.Priortothis,hewastheFrankH.MarksvisitingAssociateProfessorof intellectualproperty lawat theGeorgeWashingtonUniversityLawSchoolinWashingtonD.C.Prof.BasheergraduatedfromNLSIU,Bangalore.He then joined Anand and Anand andworked on a variety of IPmatters before hewascalled tohead the firm’sTechnologyandMedia lawdivision.Whilst inpractice, the IFLR1000guideratedhimasaleadingtechnologylawyer.Prof.Basheerthenwentontodohispost-graduatestudiesattheUniversityofOxfordwherehecompletedtheBCL(asaShellCentenaryscholar)andMPhilwithdistinction.SouvikBhadraMr.BhadraiscurrentlyapartneratPXVLawPartners,Kolkata.Heobtainedhislawdegreefrom the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. He worked as a SeniorAssociateatPXVLawPartnersandasanAssociateatAmarchandMangaldas.SheetalChopraSheetal Chopra is a registered Patent Agent and co-author of the book on ‘PatentAgentExamination:AbookforIndustryprofessionalsandstudents’ published by LexisNexis. ShehasrichexperienceworkingwithapharmaceuticalMNCasascientistandthereafterasanIPmanager.SheiscurrentlyheadingtheactivitiesoftheIPRdivisionofFICCI(Federationof Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry). Her current profile includes preparingresearchpapersonpolicyissues,providingbusinesssolutionstoindustryandgovernmentthroughresearchandanalysis,liasioningwitheminentgovernmentofficialsatthenationaland international level, designing training modules for public awareness and capacitybuildingprogrammesforenforcementagencies,academicians,legalpractitioners,industryprofessionalsandstudents.Shealsoheadsthe“IntellectualPropertyEducationCentre”bydirecting various online and diploma programmes with an aim to generate skilled IPprofessionals. Further, she currently heads the activities of “FICCI-MHRD NationalInitiativeAgainstPiracy”andcoordinateseffortsofbothindustryandgovernmentwithanaim to curb the menace of piracy. In addition to this, she heads the activities of the IPFacilitationCentre,whichhelpsSMEsinprotectingandcommercializingtheir intellectualproperty.UjwalaUppaluriUjwalaUppaluri is a fourth year student at NUJS. Her broad areas of interest lie intechnology and civil liberties (particularly the empowerment capacities of new media),internet governance and access to knowledge. She is a founding member of The FreeSpeechInitiative,ablogdedicatedtoexploringlawandpolicyacrosscommunicationmediaanditseffectparticularlyonfreespeech,privacyanddueprocessrights.

Dr.V.C.Vivekananda

Prof.V.C.VivekanandanreceivedhisPhDfromNationalLawSchoolofIndiaBangaloreinthe field of IPR and holds a M.L. Degree in Corporate Law & Securities from NagarjunaUniversityandB.L.degreefromBangaloreUniversity.HeworkedasfacultywithNational




Law School of India, Bangalore between 1990-92 and again from 1998-2001 prior tojoining NALSAR University of Law. During 1992-1998 he served as the Bureau head ofDalalStreetJournalandlaterasEditorandPublisherwithIndeGlobalCommunications.

Prof.VivekanandanspecializesinIPR,CyberLawsandBusinessLawsandistheMinistryofHuman Resources Development (MHRD) IP Chair Professor. He also coordinates theNALSAR Proximate Education offering P.G. Diploma in Patents Law, Cyber Laws, MediaLawsandInternationalHumanitarianLaws.

HeisanAdjunctVisitingProfessorwiththeBusinessSchoolofUniversityofBuffalo,NewYork since 2007 and is currently a research fellow with the law school at MaastrichtUniversity, Netherlands under the ICCSR NWO exchange scholar of 2010. He is also anelected member of the Asia Pacific Region of ALAC to ICANN (Internet Corporation ofAssignedNamesandNumbers).Healso servesas anadvisory committeememberof theIndianPatentOffice.




DAYI

Dr.N.S.Gopalakrishnan,Professor,HRDChaironIPRandDirectorInterUniversityCentreforIPRStudies,CUSATSocial,EconomicandPoliticalDimensionsofCopyright(Amendment)Act,2012Dr.Gopalakrishnanwithhisexperienceandwisdomencapsulated theamendmentsmostcomprehensively, duringhis presentation.His relentless effort andundaunted spirit sawthetranslationoftheseamendmentsintolaw.Hispresentationidentifiedthebroadthemesthatlaidthefoundationfortheentireconference.Dr. Gopalakrishnan through his presentation sought to shed light on the socio-economicand political background to the latest amendments to the Copyright Act. Dr.Gopalakrishnan examined the gaps and conflicts the amendments were aimed at, theprinciples followed in balancing interests, the role of the various interest groups, themissed opportunities andmost importantly the challenges in the implementation of theamendments.Withregardtothegapstheamendmentsaimedtoaddress,hehighlighted lacunae intheareasofdigitaltechnologywithrespecttoupdatingrights inthedigitalcontext,accessofworks to persons with disabilities, the rights of performers, and provisions relating toenforcementparticularlywith regard to the infrastructureof theCopyrightBoard.To fillthese gaps, the amendments incorporated provisions that updated the rights of authors,users and performers. Additionally, it provided for the restructuring of the CopyrightBoard andmost importantly sought to address the vacuum in the area of access for thedisabled.Dr.GopalakrishnanobservedthattheCopyrightActgeneratedconflictsduetotheexistinginterestsofmultifarious interest groups.He identified threeareas that servedasgenesisfor these conflicts. The first was that of access to works for communication whereinconflicts emerged due to the industrial growth and entry of private broadcasters,particularlyinversionrecordings.Thesecondareaofconflictwastherelationshipbetweenthe creator of the work and the print, media and audiovisual industry. In this areaadmittedly balancing provisions did exist, but the legal system with its distortedinterpretationsof theseprovisionshadcreateda fertileground for conflicts toexist.Thethird area was that of working of copyright societies. The amendment of 1994 whilecreatinganindependentenvironmentforsuchsocietiestofunctionin,hadsimultaneouslymanagedtofosteranenvironmentforconflictsintheprocess.GuidingprincipleforachievingfairbalanceDr.Gopalakrishnaninidentifyingtheprinciplesinvolvedin‘balancinginterests,’notifyinghisskepticismforsuchbalance,identifiedthreebroadprinciples:promotionofcreativity,facilitationofaccessandthesocialdimensionsofcopyright.Theprincipleofpromotingcreativitywasgiveneffectthroughatwoprongedapproachofaddressing the issue of the rights of authors and performers, and promoting access toworks.Effortsatprotectingtherightsofauthorsinadigitalcontextinvolvedthereworkingofthedefinitionsof‘cinematographfilm’and‘communicationtopublic’,inadditiontotheintroduction of two new definitions; ‘commercial rental’ and ‘visual recording’.Additionally,§38Asought toremedythe imbalance thatexistedbetweenperformersand




creators.1The balancing act involved the expansion and free use in this digital age. Theexpression ‘works’ in the Act was broadened to ‘all works’, thus including multimediaworks. In terms of private and personal use, the Act now provides for storing in digitalmedia for private and personal use in §52(1).2Another ‘revolutionary provision’ that isillustrativeofthisprincipleisthatofdigitalofstorageinlibraries.Theunderlyingobjectiveofcreatingaccesstoworksisthepromotionofcreativityandenjoymentofthework.Thefairuseprovisionshavebeenexpandedtomakeaccessaffordable, inparticularaccesstopersons with disabilities received great appreciation. The amendment has, however,missedoutonfocusingonaccessinthesphereofeducation.The second principle of facilitating such access has been effectuated through pureindustrialization.Withtherapidgrowthoftheprintandpublishing,broadcastingandtheinternet service industry, copyrighted work is being disseminated to the masses. Thedominantphilosophy,aquestionableonenevertheless, is thatrapid industrializationwillresult in access to works for all at an affordable cost. The amending act provides forbroadenedprovisionswithregardtocompulsoryandstatutorylicensing.The third principle of social dimensions is reflected in the nature of the triangularrelationshipbetweentheusers,creatorsandthe industries.The fact is that theusersareinterestedinaffordableaccess,thecreatorsinareasonablereturnforthecreativelabour,andtheindustryinareasonablereturnfortheinvestmentinproductionanddisseminationofwork.Whether the access is truly affordable and the returnsworthyof beingdeemedreasonableisanopenendedquestion.Admittedlytherearesomewhoseektoanswerthisquestionwiththephilosophythatthemarketwilltakecareofitselfandharmonizeexistingrelationships.Thisnotion,however, isbasedona twofold fallaciousassumption; the firstbeingtheexistenceoffreedomofcontractandthesecondwithregardtothemaintenanceofcompetitions.UnliketheU.S.andEuropeanUnion,theIndianmarketdoesnothavethe

1§38AExclusiverightofperformers

(1) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on authors, the performer's rightwhich is anexclusiverightsubjecttotheprovisionsofthisActtodoorauthorisefordoinganyofthefollowingactsinrespectoftheperformanceoranysubstantialpartthereof,namely:-(a) tomakeasoundrecordingoravisualrecordingoftheperformance,including-

(i) reproductionofitinanymaterialformincludingthestoringofitinanymediumbyelectronicoranyothermeans;

(ii) issuanceofcopiesofittothepublicnotbeingcopiesalreadyincirculation;(iii) communicationofittothepublic;(iv) sellingorgiving itoncommercialrentaloroffer forsaleor forcommercialrental

anycopyoftherecording;(b) to broadcast or communicate the performance to the public except where the

performanceisalreadybroadcast.(2) Once a performer bas, by written agreement, consented to the incorporation of his

performance in a cinematograph film he shall not, in the absence of any contract to thecontrary,objecttotheenjoymentbytheproducerofthefilmoftheperformer'srightinthesamefilm:Providedthat,notwithstandinganythingcontainedinthissub-section,theperformershallbeentitledforroyaltiesincaseofmakingoftheperformancesforcommercial).

2§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright

(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(a) afairdealingwithanywork,notbeingacomputerprogramme,forthepurposesof-

(i) privateorpersooaluse,includingresearch;(ii) criticismorreview,whetherofthatworkorofanyotherwork;(iii) the reporting of current events and current aflilirs, including the reporting of a

lecturedeliveredinpublic;




requiredmaturityandstabilitytodealwithconflictinginterests.Inotherwords,emergingmarketeconomiessuchas those in Indiahave limitations, themostprominentonebeingthat of unequal bargaining power between the creator and the industries. Similarly,maintaining competitions is becoming increasingly difficult with the emergence of newplayersinthemarketwhoarecreatingmoreriftsthanbalance.Suchimbalancecreatestheneedforlegislativeinterventionofthekindthatisevidencedinareasoffacilitatingaccessandregulatingrelationships.Inelucidatingontheroleplayedbyvariousinterestgroupsandtheresultingimpactonthebalancing exercise, Dr. Goplalakrishan took note of the film and music industry, thebroadcasting industry,andtheprintingandpublishing industry.Whiletheentertainmentindustrywere forerunner in seeking expansionof rights andpreventing abuseofworks,thebroadcastingindustrybecameapartoftheamendmentprocesstoresolvetheconflictsarising from the issuance of broadcasting licenses by the broadcasting ministry. Withregard to the conflict between the music industry and the broadcasting industry, thesolutionwasthe incorporationofprovisionsforeitherstatutoryorcompulsory licensing.Attheendoftheamendmentprocess,however,provisionsforbothwereincorporated.Theprinting industrywas silent until thebillwas tabled, afterwhich it stepped in to ensurethat national exhaustion of remedies is preserved in theAct as opposed to internationalremedies. Creators, such as lyricists, composers and authors, also had a criticalcontribution tomake in terms balancing relationships in the sphere of co-existing right,contracts and copyright societies. The role played by public interest groups, particularlythose lobbying for providing access of works to person with disabilities was alsonoteworthy.Furthermore, inhisopinion,theamendmentstiltedthebalanceinfavourofthosegroupswith more political and economic power. Any issues of clarity or inappropriate use oflanguage in the legislation are a result of the pressure exerted by these groups throughtheirlobbying.MissedOpportunitiesTwo keymissed opportunities reflect this powerful lobbying. The first is the provisionsrelatingtothedirectorsofafilm.§§17(f)&(g)inthedraftbillwereexcludedfromthefinalversion.3The Standing Committee was of the opinion that this provision will affect theinterestsofthefilmindustryadversely.However,italsostatedthatiftherewasanabsenceofprovisionsforlyricistsandmusiccomposers,thebillwillnotnourishtheindustry.Thereisanevidentconflicthere,sincebothareplayersinthefilmlobbyingprocess.ButwhiletheStanding Committee felt that provisions in favour of directorswould affect the industry

3TheCopyright(Amendment)Bill2010,§17Firstownerofcopyright(f) inthecaseofacinematographfilmproducedonorafterthecommencementoftheCopyright

(Amendment)Act,2010, theproducerand theprincipal director shallbe treated jointlyasthefirstownerofcopyright;

(g) in the case of a cinematograph film produced before the commencement of the Copyright(Amendment)Act, 2010, theprincipal director shall enjoy the copyright for aperiodof tenyears after the expiryof thedurationof copyright in the cinematograph film subject to theprincipaldirectorentering intoawrittenagreementwith theownerof thecopyright in thefilmduringthesubsistenceofcopyright:

Providedthatanagreementreferredtointhisclauseshallnotbenecessaryincasewheretheownerandprincipaldirectorarethesameperson:

Providedfurtherthatincaseofanyworkincorporatedinacinematographwork,nothingcontainedinclauses(b)and(c)shallaffecttherightoftheauthorintheworkreferredtoinclause(a)ofsub-section(1)ofsection13.




adversely,ittookacontrarypositioninthecaseoflyricistsandmusiccomposers.Thiswasanimpactoflobbyingbythelatter.Thesecondprovisionistheoneontheexhaustionofrights,whichwasonthetableinthenegotiationsstage.Therelevantprovisotosection2(m)was,however,droppedfromthefinalversionofthebilldespiteStandingCommittee’sstrongsupport.4Thiswasanimpactoflobbyingthattiltedtheprovisionsinsuchamanner.ChallengesintheimplementationDr. Gopalakrishnan noted several perceived challenges in implementing the provisions.Firstly, themostcriticalchallengewouldberelatedtotherelationshipofauthorsandtheindustry.Thechangesintroducedin§§17,18&19,readwiththeamendmentsintroducedwith regard to copyright societies could potentially give rise to various conflicts. Theamendments do not specify which contracts they would be applicable to. Whether theprovisions cover new existingworks or newworks or both is unclear. Furthermore, thevalidityofexistingcontractsandtheirenforceabilityisalsouncertain.Atpresent,therearealargenumberofcontractsinexistence,particularlywithreferencetothecopyrightsocietiesandtheirfunctioning.Thesetwoissuesarecorrelated.Thereisalackof clarity in the legislativedirectionsavailable in this regard.Anothermajor issue istheinterpretationoftheterm‘royalties’andone-timepaymentbeingconsideredasroyaltyflow.Therehasbeenadeliberatelegislativeinterventionin§§18&19thatmakesitveryclear that royalty must be paid ‘in addition to’ the payments you make. Thus, the newmeaning of the term ‘royalty’ must be determined in the context of the amendment-whetheritisaperiodicreturnorwhetheraone-timepaymentisalsoaroyalty.Moreover,thevalidityof thebanon therightofassignmentofroyalties (particularly incaseof filmand sound recording) might be challenged. There might also be practical issues in theimplementation of the mandatory sharing of royalties with regard to film and soundrecording between producers and creators. There is also a provision that says that onlycopyright societies can licenseworks that have gotten incorporated into film and soundrecordings. Itmustbedeterminedhowthecontracts fortheseprovisionswillbedrafted.Litigatingtheseanomalieswouldbeanineffectivesolution.Itwouldbebeneficial insteadtobridgetherelationshipbetweenthetwopartiesandintroducegoodindustrialpracticebydevelopingbalancedcontracts.Secondly,thechallengetoimplementationwouldbeintermsofthecoexistenceofvariousrights.Therightsof copyright, creatorsandproducersareaffectedby theamendment tosections18and19.ThismustbeinterpretedintermsofthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtin the IPRS decision.5Furthermore, challenges may arise due to the coexistence ofcopyright, performance right and broadcast reproduction right. It must be ensured thatthere is nomutual conflict between the newly amended §§13, 14, 17 and the proviso to§§39A(1)&(2).

4TheCopyright(Amendment)Bill,2010,§2(m)‘infringingcopy’means

ProvidedthatacopyofaworkpublishedinanycountryoutsideIndiawiththepermissionoftheauthoroftheworkandimportedfromthatcountryintoIndiashallnotbedeemedtobeaninfringingcopy.5IndianPerformingRightsSocietyv.EasternIndiaMotionPicturesAssociation,1977SCR(3)206.




Thirdly,theexpansionofthedurationofphotographsforthepurposeofprotectionmightalsobeanissue.6Theissueofidentifyingthephotographerhastobeaddressed.Earlier,itwas only for a 25 year period from the date of publication of the photograph, so itwaseasiertoidentifythephotographer.However,aftertheamendment,thisdurationhasbeenincreased to the lifetime of the photographer plus 60 years. There is a problem ofidentifyingphotographersas95%ofphotographsarewithoutthephotographer’sname.Fourthly, there is an interesting situation with respect to statutory licensing. Whileperformance righthasbeenaddedand strengthened, there isno reference to§§31C and31D (related toperformers’ rights) in theprovision for statutory licensing (§39A).Thus,there is uncertainty as to whether a statutory license for a copyrighted work can beenjoyedwithoutperformancerightbeingacquired.Fixingofroyaltiesoncoverversionsinadigitalcontextisanotherrelatedissue.Thephrase‘lastmedium inwhich it has beenpublished is themedium from the cover versions cantake place’ is ambiguous and the Copyright Board must resolve the uncertainty. Withregardtocoverageofsimulcastingandwebcasting,theprovisiondoesnotclearlyresolvetheconceptualdifferencebetweensimulcasting,webcastingandbroadcasting.Fifthly,withrespecttotheprotectionofInternetServiceProviders(ISPs),therehasbeenafailureinaddressingtheoverlapbetweentheInformationTechnologyRule,2011andtheCopyright Act. There is an overlap between sections 51(1)(b)7(electronic transmission)and51(1)(c)8(access)whichmustbereadtogethertoensurethatautomatictransmissionsare exempted from the ambit of the provisionwhile at the same time the possibility ofaccessthroughhumaninterventionremainsalive.ThisisbecausethereisnopossibilityofhumaninterventioninCl.(b)whileC.(c)requiresreasonablecarefromISPs.

6§22Termofcopyrightinpublishedliterary,dramatic,musicalandartisticworksExceptasotherwisehereinafterprovided,copyrightshallsubsist inanyliterary,dramatic,musicalor artisticwork [other than a photograph] publishedwithin the lifetime of the author until sixtyyearsfromthebeginningofthecalendaryearnextfollowingtheyearinwhichtheauthordies.Explanation.- In this section the reference to the author shall, in the case of a work of jointauthorship,beconstruedasareferencetotheauthorwhodieslast.7§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright

(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(b) the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical

processofelectronictransmissionorcommunicationtothepublic;

8§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:

(c) transientor incidentalstorageofaworkorperformanceforthepurposeofprovidingelectronic links, accessor integration,where such links, accessor integrationbasnotbeenexpresslyprohibitedbytherightbolder,unlessthepersonresponsibleisawareorbasreasonablegroundsforbelievingthatsuchstorageisofaninfringingcopy:

Providedthat if thepersonresponsible for thestorageof thecopybasreceivedawritten complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that suchtransient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for thestorageshallrefrainfromfacilitatingsuchaccessforaperiodoftwenty-onedaysortillbereceivesanorderfromthecompetentcourtrefrainingfromfacilitatingaccessandincasenosuchorderisreceivedbeforetheexpiryofsuchperiodoftwenty-onedays,bemaycontinuetoprovidethefacilityofsuchaccess.




Sixthly,inthefunctioningofCopyrightSocieties,conflictbetweentherightsoftheauthorsand owners of right (industry) needs to be addressed. The functioning of copyrightwillhavetoberestructuredtoaccommodatetheprovisions for thecontrol,managementandsharing of royalty. The re-registration and settlement of disputes on royalty paymentsbasedonexistingagreementswillbeanotherchallengebecausethelawlaysdownclearlythat for re-registration it ismandatory that a ‘clean-chit’ is givenby themembersof thesociety stating that there is no dispute existing. There is also a conflict between thefreedomtolicenseontheonesideandthelegislativemandatethattheissuingoflicensesfor literary,dramatic,musicalandartisticworkincludedinfilmorsoundrecordingmustbe based on a copyright society. There is also a need to ensure transparency in thefunctioningofsocietiesandtopreventmonopolisticpracticesbythesesocietiestoensureaccess.Next, conflictsmay also arise between the provisions of the act and customs ruleswithregard to intellectual property and border security measures. An express statutoryprovision talks aboutwhat securitymeasures are to be takenwhen infringing pieces ofworkunderourcopyrightactareboughtwithinourborders.Attheendoftheday,itisthecustomsofficerswhoaregoingtohavetoenforceit.Lastly, on the Technological Protection Measures (TPMs), the meaning of ‘effectivetechnologicalmeasuresappliedforthepurposeofprotectingtherights’in§65A9isunclear.Thepropermeaningof ‘proofofcircumventswith the intentionof infringingsuchrights’mustalsobedetermined.Further, the implementationof theexception to thisprovision,that allows for third-party intervention for facilitating circumvention (under §52)mightposeapracticalconcern.ConcludingthoughtsChallengesmayariseduetothe‘balancingofinterests’inafastgrowingeconomy.Duetoimbalanceinthislobbyingpower,onemaywitnesschallengesasaresultofimmaturityofthepartiesor thegrowingneedsof the industry.There isa resistanceon thepartof theownersofthecopyrighttoholdontothemaximumextentpossibleisindirectconflictwiththeneedforcompetitionthatwouldfacilitatethegrowthoftheindustry,especiallymiddlelevel and lower level industrial growth, which is the strength of the economy and isresponsibleforgeneratingemployment.Theissueofcoverversionsisaclassicexampleof9§65AProtectionoftechnologicalmeasures

(1) Anypersonwhocircumventsaneffectivetechnologicalmeasureappliedforthepurposeofprotecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing suchrights, shall be punishablewith imprisonmentwhichmay extend to two years and shallalsobeliabletofine.

(2) Nothinginsub-section(1)shallpreventanypersonfrom,-(a) doinganythingreferredtothereinfor·apurposenotexpresslyprohibitedbythisAct:

Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of atechnological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of suchotherperson including hisname, address and all relevantparticularsnecessary toidentifyhimandthepurposeforwhichhehasbeenfacilitated;or

(b) doing anythingnecessary to conductencryption researchusing a lawfullyobtainedencryptedcopy;or

(c) conductinganylawfulinvestigation;or(d) doinganythingnecessaryforthepurposeoftestingthesecurityofacomputersystem

oracomputernetworkwiththeauthorisationofitsowner;or(e) operator;or(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for

identificationorsurveillanceofauser;or(g) takingmeasuresnecessaryintheinterestofnationalsecurity.




this.Thereisanassumptionthatstrengtheningthecopyrightswillautomaticallyincreaseaccesstoworks.However,thereneedstobeadeliberatelegislativeinterventiontorefocuscopyrightlawinsuchawayastoincreaseaccesstoinformation.The challenge lies inpromoting industrial growthwithout sacrificing social interest. Theindustryisfacinghugechallengesfrompowerfulindustrygroups.Thereisaterrificsocialinterest in terms of access to information, promoting creativity and encouraging talent.Thesechallengesarebeingfacedinmanyindustries:printing,broadcastingandinternet.




SESSIONICopyright&Entertainment

Theentertainmentindustryhasbeenattheforefrontovertheyearsforinstitutingchangestothecopyrightregime.Thissessionfocusedonevaluatingtheimpactoftheamendmentstotheentertainment industry. Informative and comprehensive presentations were made by Mr.PrashantPandey (CEO,RadioMirchi)andMr.ArunMohan(Advocate,MadrasHighCourt).Thesepresentationsfocusedontheemergenceofstatutorylicenses,theprovisionsregardingroyalty sharing between producers, composers and lyricists and performers’ rights. Thesepresentationswere followed by an in depth round table discussion on the on the future ofentertainmentinIndia.ThepanelistsofthisroundtablediscussionwerePhulakBagchi(Vice-President,Legal&RegulatoryAffairs,StarIndia),AnjumRajabali(FilmWriters’Association,Mumbai)andRajeshDhupad (Jt. Secretary, South IndiaMusicCompaniesAssociation).ThepresentationsandtheroundtablewasmoderatedbyDrMadhukarSinha(Professor,CentreforWTOStudies).PrashantPandayCEO,RadioMirchiTheemergenceofthestatutorylicenseandhowitisthekeytoconvergenceandnewmediaflourishingMr. Panday welcomed the insertion of statutory licensing provisions from a radiobroadcasters’ perspective andbelieved that theprovisionsbenefit copyright owners andfacilitate access to music. To provide the relevant context, Mr. Panday highlighted thenecessity for introducing statutory licenses. Until 1999, private broadcasters operatedshowsonAIR frequency for two to fourhoursperday.Music licenseswereproblematicevenatthatpointbutfortunately,negotiationsensuedandtariffsweresetatRs.160perneedlehour.Insuchascenario,a24-hourradiobroadcasterwouldincurRs.10-12lakhsofexpendituretowardstariffannuallyperstation.ThefirstprivateradiostationwaslaunchedinJuly2001.Theroyaltyratesskyrocketedallof a sudden and Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) demanded higher thanRs.1,500perneedlehouror20%of revenues. Inaddition, the IndianPerformingRightsSociety (IPRS)demandeda furtherRs. 1,000perneedlehouror10%of revenues at thebeginningof2001.IPRS,however,negotiateda10-yearlongagreementstarting2001foraratebetweenRs.65andRs.250perneedlehour(averagearoundRs.125perneedlehour);further the reference to revenues was dropped. In 2005 however, IPRS sued radiobroadcasterswithanintenttocanceltheagreement(thelegalityofwhichisquestionableintheabsenceofaprovisiontodoso)andrevertedbacktotheirdemandofRs.1,000perneedle hour or 10% of revenues, whichever was higher. This demand continues eventoday.Suchasituationarosebecausethemusicindustryenjoysanaturalmonopolyoversradioconsumersandthereforebroadcastershadtoshelloutclosetoacrorerupeeseveryyearas royalties. Mr. Pandey added that the music industry was unwilling to negotiate theroyalties. Furthermore, the exorbitant rates were across cities, whether small or big. InJabalpur, for instance, the total royalties exceeded the total market value. In 2006, theroyalty rateswentup toRs. 2,400perneedlehour. Later, PPLand IPRSdemanded20%and10%shareinrevenuesrespectively,inadditiontoroyalties.




InIndia,royaltiesamountto30%ofthetotalrevenue.Thisisveryhighincomparisontoradio industries worldwide where radio broadcasters pay 0-4% of revenues towardsroyalties.TheUKisoneofthefewcountrieswhereexpenditureonroyaltycomescloseto10%. Themusic industry, however, grantsweb andmobile license free of cost. In 2002,IndianradiobroadcastersapproachedtheCopyrightBoard,whichhadfixedroyaltiesatRs.661 per needle hour across cities. Moreover, the music industry adopted severaldiscriminatorypractices includingsidesteppingof individualbroadcastersandevencriedfoul against radio broadcasters for their losses. At the same time, however, Mr. Pandeynotedinstanceswheremusiclabelsrequestingradiochannelstoplaytheirsongspriortotheirrelease.Theabuseofdominancebymusiclabelsisnowadverselyaffectingnewagemediaaswell.Thedominanceofmusiclabelsmadetheradioindustryunprofitable.Withtheinsertionof§31D,10the radio broadcasters pay royalties set by the Copyright Board if the copyrightsocieties fail to set reasonable rates. Mr. Pandey further emphasized that the provisioncovers an array of broadcasters, including web-based music services. Furthermore, hedismissed any ambiguity over the usage of television and radio broadcasting for thepurposeof fixing royalties in §31D(3) stating that itwasnecessitatedowing topressurefrom television lobby.11The nature of this statutory license, according to Mr. Pandey,facilitatesincreasedaccesstomusic.Mr.Pandeyassertedtheneedforcooperationofsocietiesandadherencetobestbusinesspracticesforthegoodofthemarketandforthebenefitofcreatorsofwork.Intheabsenceofsuchcooperation,however,statutorylicensingwouldbeinvoked.FeedbackMr.RajeshDhupadhighlightedthedisparityintheroyaltyratespaidtocopyrightsocieties(2%) and commission (10-15%) paid to ad agencies per advertisement. Mr. Pandey inresponsestatedthatthebroadcasterincurenormouscostsinlabour,marketingandbrandbuilding.Forinstance,henotedthatEntertainmentNetwork(India)Ltd.(ENIL)spendsRs.15croresonelectricityalone.Therefore,multiplicityoffactorsdeterminesthecommissionrates onmusic royalties. On a different note, to a query posed by a student on royaltiesapplicabletowebmarkets,Mr.PandaystatedthatthereisanarrangementforroyaltiesifthesourceisinIndia.ArunMohanAdvocate,MadrasHighCourtBollywoodCalling:DoestheCopyrightAmendmentActanswer?Mr.MohanstartedbyhighlightingthefactthattheIndianFilmIndustry(IFI)isthelargestmovie industry in the word with the box office exceeding the Rs. 100 crore figure. Hebrought to the notice of the participants that of late, even foreign corporations such as

10§31DStatutorylicenseforbroadcastingofliteraryandmusicalworksandsoundrecording

(2) Thebroadcastingorganisationshallgivepriornotice,insuchmannerasmaybeprescribed,of its intention tobroadcast thework stating theduration and territorial coverageof thebroadcast,andshallpaytotheownerofrightsineachworkroyaltiesinthemannerandattheratefixedbytheCopyrightBoard.

11§31DStatutorylicenseforbroadcastingofliteraryandmusicalworksandsoundrecording

(3) Theratesof royalty for radiobroadcastingshallbedifferent fromtelevisionbroadcastingand the copyright Board shall fix separate rates for radio broadcasting and televisionbroadcasting.




WarnerBros.haveenteredthemarket.Toprovidetherelevantcontext,Mr.Mohanbrieflydiscussedthebackgroundtotheamendments.Theamendmentsattractedmixedreactionsfromvariousstakeholders.Artistswelcomedtheamendmentsforrelievingthemfromtheclutches of bonded labour. Labels and broadcasters were supportive of the changes.Producers, however, are dissatisfied and have lamented that the amendments increasecostsandignoreindustrypractices.Mr.Mohanwentontostatethatthepre-amendmentprovisionswereequivalentto§90oftheUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct,1988and§204oftheUnitedStatesCode,Title17. Despite similarities, artists in foreign jurisdictions are paid higher and are assuredgreaterbenefitsthanIndiancounterparts.Therefore,itwasfeltthattheamendmentswerebroughtinwithoutexaminingindustrypracticesandprovisionsinforeignjurisdictions.Withregardto§§18(1)provisos12&19(9)13,Mr.Mohannotedthatanartistcannotassignhis share of royalties in musical works, whether cinematographic films or otherwise.Artistsareentitledtoroyaltiesforuseofworks,exceptincasesoftheatricalscreeningforpublic. This exclusion of synchronization rights is, however, only partial. The StandingCommittee has not pointed out any reasons for such a limitation.Moreover,Mr.Mohanemphasizedonthe fact that theprovision leavesunansweredthequestionofroyalties ininstances of private screening and other scenarios such asDVDs, VCDs, BlueRay and TVBroadcast.Mr.Mohanperused international experienceon thepointwhich showed that threebasictypes of rights exist in a piece of work: performing, mechanical and synchronization.Royalty on synchronization rights is not industry practice in the US. He informed theparticipantsontheexistenceofapendingproposalfor‘uni-license’rightsleavingratestofree market. With respect to performance rights, the Standing Committee noted, ‘ifproducer enjoys synchronization right, authors/composers should enjoy performingrights.’Theambitofperformancerights,however,isverywideandincludesroyaltiesfromweb,advertisements,ringtonesetc.Hebroughttolightthefactthatthecosttoproducershas not been considered. There is also some confusion about the regulation of societies,leaving the possibility of multiple societies. The demands of regional industries to havesocietiesoftheirowncouldmakeitdifficultforbroadcasterstoobtainlicenses.12§18Assignmentofcopyright

(1) …Provided also that the author of the literary or musical work included in a

cinematographfilmshallnotassignorwaivetherighttoreceiveroyaltiestobesharedonanequalbasiswith theassigneeof copyright for theutilizationof suchwork inany formotherthanforthecommunicationtothepublicoftheworkalongwiththecinematographfilminacinemahall,except to the legalheirsof theauthorsor toacopyrightsociety forcollectionanddistributionandanyagreementtocontraryshallbevoid:

Providedalsothattheauthoroftheliteraryormusicalworkincludedinthesoundrecordingbutnotformingpartofanycinematographfilmshallnotassignorwaivetherightto receive royalties tobe sharedonanequalbasiswith theassigneeof copyright foranyutilizationofsuchworkexcepttothelegalheirsoftheauthorsortoacollectingsocietyforcollectionanddistributionandanyassignmenttothecontraryshallbevoid.

13§19Modeofassignment

(9) Noassignmentofcopyrightinanyworktomakeacinematographfilmshallaffecttherightoftheauthoroftheworktoclaimanequalshareofroyaltiesandconsiderationpayableincaseofutilizationoftheworkinanyformotherthanforthecommunicationtothepublicofthework,alongwiththecinematographfilminacinemahall.




Mr.Mohanwentontoshowhowthisamendmenthashadadirecteffectonthepaymentmodel.Theone-timepaymentmodel,hesaidisnowoutdated.Thiswasbecauseproducerswould churn out only commercially viablemusic and contrary towhat the amendmentsenvisage, producers can get composers towork for free. Furthermore, the law creates adirect conflict between theprincipal directorwho is not concernedwith the commercialviabilityandmusiccomposerswhobenefitfromroyalties.He then went on to discuss piracy related issues. He highlighted that the amendmentsratifiedtheJohnDoesuitsinordertodealwithpiracy.Hewentontoexposethedefectinthismoveashesaid that therewas,no increasedprotection for ISPsand intermediaries.And with the amendments, there will be a definite rise in litigations to combat onlinepiracy.Heurgedthatatthisstage,therealproblemswiththefilmindustrymustbediscussed.Heobserved that despite having almost identical statutory provisions, themajor reason forthedifferenceintheexperienceintheUSandIndiaistheroleofunions.WhileintheUS,unionshaveeffectivelynegotiatedstandardformcontractsandprovidecontractualadviceand provisions for the recovery of unpaid fee and health cover to its members, Indianunionshaveprovedineffectiveinthisrespect.FeedbackAnjumRajabali representing the voice of scriptwriters, addressing the issue ofwhy thisinterventionwasnecessaryinIndiaandnotintheUS,drewparallelswiththenecessityforthe prevention of dowry and sati Acts in India. He opined that disempowerment, weakunions, the lack of norms for good business practices and self-regulation significantlydistinguishesthescenario inIndiafromthatoftheUS. Theinadequaterepresentationofartistsevenwhile thenegotiations for theamendmentsweretakingplace isaccordingtohim a reflection of lack weak bargaining power. According to Mr. Rajabali there arehistoricalreasonsforthisinequity,whichmakescontractsdifficulttonegotiate.Thatbeingsaid,aminimumbasiccontractisbeingworkedonbytheindustry.Roundtable discussion on the impact of the amendments on thefutureofentertainmentinIndiaOPENINGSTATEMENTbyDr.MadhukarSinha(Moderator)Mr.Sinhaintroducedthediscussionbythrowinglightontheimportanceofallcontributorsin the film industry. In this regard, he noted that the story is just as important as thedirection.Star-powerisnolongerthedrivingforceinthesuccessofamovie.Hefeltitwastimethatothercontributorsgottheirdueshareandthelatestamendmentsareintendedinthat direction. The moot question he highlights, remains whether the changes broughtaboutfacilitatesaccesstoworks,whichisfundamentaltoculturalrightsundertheIndianConstitution.Mr.Sinhaexplainedthatthisexercisewasanattempttosolicitresponsesonthis issue and enquirewhether the amendments strike a balance amongst various lobbygroups.Dr.Sinhaopenedthediscussionwiththefollowingquestionstothepanelists:

1. What measures are in place to improve access to entertainment to public ataffordablerate?

2. Wereyouabletolobbysuccessfullyinbringingthechanges?

AnjumRajabli Mr. Rajabli responding to these questions said that access to




entertainment is no more a concern especially with mushroomingnumber of theatres and multiplexes, television and the internetthroughpiracy.Mr.Rajabaliaddedthatpiracy isa fact in Indiaandunfortunately, the economics of distribution tradewouldnot allowustoaccesstomovies.The situation in the film industry necessitated legislativeinterventionandthe incorporationofclausesonnon-assignmentofsharing of royalties is a sign of successful lobbying. A similarprovision is available only in Germany. This shock to the IndianCopyrightsystemwasessentialtogetvariousgroupstocollectivelybargain for determining contractual arrangements in the industry.The fact that producers are now willing to negotiate withscriptwriters and lyricists, Mr. Rajabali stated that to be the mostconstructiveimpactoftheamendments.Mr. Rajabali emphasized the need for negotiations between theauthors anddistributors arenecessary to achievea fairbalance. Inthecontextof scriptwriters inparticular,headds, thatnegotiationswere necessary to determine royalty sharing considering the factthatmoviesinvolveeffortsofmultiplescriptwriters.Thelegislationcannotprovidesolutioninthisregard.

PulakBagchi Much of the focus legislatively has been on public access anddisappointingly right to access to content for free is legislated inIndia. To illustrate, India has The Sports Broadcasting Signals(MandatorySharingWithPrasarBharati)Act,2007whichmakes itmandatory for broadcasters to share feed of specified sportingevents with Doordarshan and that too for free. Any viewer canwatch these events inDoordarshan practically free of cost therebydistorting the business case for pay television . Also the TelecomRegulatory Authority of India (TRAI) mandates that the televisionindustryshouldprovidesignalstocableorDTHprovidersona‘mustprovide’basiswithouthoweverensuringthatbroadcastersgetpaidfor all the subscribers being served by such operators. This hascomplicated the business of television as there is no way for abroadcastertoascertaintheactualrecipientofsuchtransmissionofsignalsunliketelecomorbroadbandwheretheserviceproviderhasfullknowledgeofitssubscriberbase.Therefore,Mr.Bagchibelievesthat access is not an issue of importance. However, the excessivefocusonaccessappearstohavehadadisparagingeffectonquality.Todayallchannelsaretryingtoemulatethesamecontentacrosstheboard as the existing regime gives primacy to access rather thaninnovation.Commenting on the fragmentation of rights resulting from theamendments,Mr.Bagchiasksiftheamendmentseffectivelyaddresstheconcernsofauthorsordoesitsetmorequestionsthananswersandhowwouldtheindustryreworkandrealignwithintheamendedlegislativeframeworktofindresolutionstolong-pendingissues?Forthe timebeinghoweverwhathesees is that theamendmentshaveresulted in creating multiple points of negotiations which areimpedingthesearchforthefairbalance.




RajeshDhupad Mr.Dhupadrespondedbysayingthatalthoughpiracyhasincreased

accesstomusicmanifold,ithascertainlydentedthemusicindustrywhich has gone bankrupt. When there is public access to creativeworks, there should be an inflow ofmoneywhich is sadly not thecase.Majorityofmusicaccessedthroughphoneisthroughpiracy.OnbehalfofSIMCA,hewelcomedtheamendmentsingivingrightstocomposersandauthors.Mr.Dhupad,however,stressedontheneedfortheindustrytonegotiatewithauthorsandcomposersinworkingoutmodalitiesforsharingofroyalties.

AnjumRajabli Mr.Rajabali raisedan interjection toMr.Dhupadon the reason fortheabsenceofnegotiationspriortotheamendments.

RajeshDhupad In response, Mr. Dhupad gave instances where composers andwritersaskedforremunerationupfrontwithoutconsideringanofferforpaymentofroyalties.

AnjumRajabli Inresponse,Mr.Rajabalistatedthatthemindsettoletgoofroyaltiesis an outcome of ‘bonded labour’, not out of freewill. In a bizzareinstance, Mr. Rajabali cited contractual terms between thescreenwriter and studios which forced the former to relinquishclaimsonthescripttocoversituationswherethesamescriptcouldbeusedtomakemoviesinthefuture.

RajeshDhupad Mr.Dhupadstatedthatoneforgetstorealizethattheproducerbearsalltherisks.Healsostatedthatthecostofproductionisfactoredinandthereforecannotbeignored.

Mr. Sinha agreedwithMr. Rajabali on the need for the change in themindset of musiclabels and studios. Furthermore, Mr. Sinha narrated an instance where an eminentpersonalityfromamusiccompanybrazenlydemandednamesofthosewhodeposedbeforetheGovernmentrepresentingtheartistsbeforeenactingtheamendments.Mr.Sinhaaddedthattheartistsfeltthreatenedaboutrevealingtheiridentitiestomusicproducers.Mr. Sinha solicited closing remarks from thepanelistson theiroverall assessmentof theamendments.PulakBagchi Commenting,Mr.Bagchisaiditwastooearlytocommitasthereare

lots of questions yet to be answered.Mr. Bagchi further expressedhisunwillingnesstotakesidesbeforewitnessingtheamendmentsinoperation.Mr.BagchiapplaudedMr.Sinhaforhiseffortsinbringingabouttheamendments in a fair and transparent manner. With respect toefficacyoftheamendments,Mr.Bagchistatedthatitwasprematuretodrawanyconclusions.

RajeshDhupad Mr.Dhupadexpressedhisapprehensionon thepracticalitiesof theamendments. Furthermore, Mr. Dhupad hoped that the welcomechangeswouldpavewayforthemusicandfilmindustrytochurnoutsolutionsforsharingofrevenuesinthefuture.




AnjumRajabali Mr. Rajabali was pleased with the balance brought by the

amendments andhailed the changes as ‘historic.’ The amendmentsgives the artists due acknowledgement for their efforts and hascertainlybroughtlabelsandstudiostothenegotiatingtable.Mr.Rajabalibelievesthatthechangesprovidemotivationforartistsinthefuture.What’slefttobedoneisironingouttheimplicationsinanequitableandreasonablemanner.

Mr. Gautam from Khaitan & Co shared the predominant sentiment of gross misuse ofdominantpositionbyproducers.Supportingtheamendments,Mr.Gautamaddsthatitisageneraltendencyfordominantentities(producers)toactintheinterestofothers(lyricistsandcomposers)unlesscompelledto.Mr. SumeetMalik asked the panel if themusic labels andproducerswould bewilling toencouragenewtalentinlightofthenewsharingstructure.MrAnanthPadmanabhan,apracticing lawyer in theMadrasHighCourtstatedthat therearenumerouslimitationsandconstraintsinmakingbringingoutthedesiredobjectivesofthe amendments. The unequal bargaining power stems from the practices in the Indianindustry where the movie stars and composers charge exorbitant fees unlike othercountries.Therefore,tooffshootthecostofacquisition,labelsandstudiosshifttheburdenonbroadcastersforinstance.Therefore,theamendmentsfailinthisaspect.Mr.Rajabaliinresponse stated that the amendments would bring about restructuring of economies infilmmakingwhichwouldaddresstheconcern.CONCLUDINGREMARKSMr.Sinhastatedthatitwasstillearlyandsuggestedthattheamendmentsbeviewedwithoptimism. He hoped that the long drawn process in passing the amendments is lesscumbersomeinthefuture.




SESSIONIICopyrightandTechnology

The session focused primarily on the comprehending the scope of Technological ProtectionMeasures (TPMs) and Intermediary Liability provisions inserted in the Copyright Act. Thissession commenced with two presentations, one made by Mr. Pranesh Prakash (PolicyDirector,Centre for InternetandSociety) speakingonTPMSand theotherbyMr.RajendraKumar (Partner,K&SPartners)whodiscussed IntermediaryLiability.Adetailedaccountofthe position before and after the 2012 amendment was provided by both the speakers.Comprehensive comparative analysis on the both the issues were also made. This wasfollowedbyaroundtablediscussionontheimpactofthe2012amendmentonthetechnologysector in India. The panelists for the round table discussion were Dr. V. C. Vivekanandan(MHRDChairof IPLaw,NALSARUniversityofLaw)andShouvikBadru (Partner,PXVLawPartners). The session and the round table discussion were moderated by Prof. ShamnadBasheer(MHRDChairofIPLaw,NUJS).PraneshPrakash,PolicyDirector,CentreforInternetandSocietyIntroductiontoTPMsMr.PrakashstartedbyexplainingwhatTechnologicalProtectionMeasures (TPMs)were.Hestatedthat theyareessentiallydigital locksalsoknownasDigitalRightsManagement(DRMs).ThoughIndiaisnotasignatorytoeithertheWIPOCopyrightTreaty(WCT)ortheWIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), the reasons for incorporating thetreaty requirements is unclear, he added. Another unfortunate insertion, he highlightedwastheextensionoftermcopyrightprotectionforphotographfrom60yearstolifeplus60years.14Mr.Prakash,however,statedthatthecurrentschemeofTPMsarebyfarthebestanywhereintheworld.Firstly,ithasbeentailoredtonarrowlyfitthecopyrightregime.One,subjectmatterofTPMsisonlyrestrictedtoactscoveredundercopyrights.Two,allexceptionstocopyrightareapplicabletoTPMsaswell.IndiahasdefinitelylearntfromtheUnitedStatesdigital copyright laws which extended to non-copyright subject matter. Secondly,manufacture,advertisingandothersuchaspectsarenotdisallowedinIndia,thatistosaythatfacilitatingcircumventionisnotoutrightillegal.Furthermore,theprovisionprohibitstheactsofcircumventionandnotthetoolsperse.Mr.Prakashthenhighlightedthedownsidetotheprovision.Thishesaidisthelackofdutyon the copyrightowner toextend facilities for circumventionwhen theuser isunable tocircumvent on his/her own. Though the user has legitimate right to circumvent, lack oftoolsmakestherightredundant.Moreover,hestatedthattheactsofcircumventionhavebeen deemed as a criminal wrong as opposed to civil wrong which is the requirementunderWCT.Abright side to this, however, is the additional requirement ofmensreaforcriminal offences. Lastly, the phrase ‘facilitating circumvention’ is unclear. Mr. Prakashsuggestedthatthephrasebeconstruednarrowlytomakeitpracticable.

14§22Termofcopyrightinpublishedliterary,dramatic,musicalandartisticworksExceptasotherwisehereinafterprovided,copyrightshallsubsist inanyliterary,dramatic,musicalor artisticwork [other than a photograph] publishedwithin the lifetime of the author until sixtyyearsfromthebeginningofthecalendaryearnextfollowingtheyearinwhichtheauthordies.Explanation.- In this section the reference to the author shall, in the case of a work of jointauthorship,beconstruedasareferencetotheauthorwhodieslast.




RajendraKumar,Partner,K&SPartnersHow safe are the safe harboursunder theCopyrightAct, 1957andtheITAct,2000?Mr.KumarfirsttracedtheevolutionoftheinternetfromWeb1.0,whichwasastaticspaceprovidingapassiveexperiencetoitsusers,toWeb2.0whereinitispossibletocollaborateand interact. Therefore, today theBulletinBoard System (BBS) is a reflectionof the realworld,whereanindividualisboththecreatorandtherecipientofcontent.Thisinturnhasfacilitatedgreatere-commerceandhasprovidedawidersocialstage.Transactionsontheinternetarefacilitatedbyvarietyofintermediariesbyprovidingaccessto,hostandindexthirdpartycontent.Thisthirdpartycontent,attimesarefraughtwithlegalliabilities.Mr. Kumar then went on to throw light on the position prior to the Digital MillenniumCopyrightAct (DMCA)and theWCT. AUScourt inReligiousTechnologyCentrev.NetcomOn-line Communication Services Inc. (1995) decided the liability of an internet accessprovider for a BBS.15The plaintiff argued that the defendant Netcom was directly andvicariously liable for copyright infringement. The court, however, absolved theintermediaryfromliabilityforreasons;thatintermediariesmayhavenoeffectivecontrol;thatitisalmostimpossibleforthemtocheckfortheliabilityofcontentthatpassesthroughthemandsparedthemfromliabilitywithrespecttocontentcreatedbyothers.Hethenwentontostatethattheintermediaries’caseforimmunityfromcontentliabilityisprimarily on account of three reasons: first, the lack of effective legal or actual control;second, inequity of imposing liability on ameremessenger and third, consequences forpublic interest. The other side of the debate, however, argues that ISPs are the onlyeffectivegate-keepers.Thisledtothebirthofthenoticeandtakedownregime.Here,theinternetserviceproviderisnotliableforthirdpartyinfringementaslongastheyhavenoknowledgeofthesame.Assoonastheybecomeawareofsuchinfringement,however,theyaretotakedownthematerial.HenotedthatintheUS,theDMCAcreatesasafeharbourforonlineserviceproviders,fortransitory, caching, storing and information location platforms, against liability fromcopyright infringement. These intermediaries must block access to alleged infringingmaterial(orremovesuchmaterialfromtheirsystems)whentheyreceivenotificationofaninfringementclaimfromacopyrightholderorthecopyrightholder'sagent.Further,§230of the Communications Decency Act provides absolute immunity to intermediaries fromdefamation,falseinformation,pornographicmaterial,threatsetc.16InEurope,theE-CommerceDirective2000/31/ECprovidesforsafeharboursforconduits,cachingandhosting services.17Mere conduitsareprovidedanabsolute safeharbourandincludetelecommunicationcarriers,internetaccessprovidersetc.Cachingservicesarealsosubjecttosimilartermsasconduits.TheDirective,however,requiresthattheintermediaryfirst,hadnoknowledgeoftheillegalactivity;second,hadnowayofknowingthesameandthird, acts expeditiously to remove such content if aware. The directive does notspecificallyextendthesafeharbourtosearchenginesandonlinemarketplaces. InGoogle

15Religious Technology Center v. NetcomOn-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361(N.D.Cal.1995).16CommunicationsDecencyAct,1996(CDA),§230.17Directive2000/31/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof8June2000.




Inc. v. Louis Vuitton, however, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held that it wasapplicable to an AdWord referencing service.18The CJEU, in L’orealv.Ebay, further heldthattheDirectiveisapplicabletoanoperatorofanonlinemarketplacewheretheserviceprovider has no active role in knowledge or control.19In theNewzbincase (20thCenturyFox v. BT), however, a UK court held that even if safe harbour is applicable to BritishTelecom,itwouldbesubjecttothelongarmofthecourt.20Inthiscontext,Scarletv.SABAMwasalsodiscussedbyMr.Kumar,whereinclientsofanISPweredownloadingfromSABAMwithoutpayingroyalty.21HereitwassaidthatnationalcourtsareprecludedfromissuinginjunctionagainstanISPrequiringittoinstallafilteringsystem.InSABAMv.Netlog,itwasfurther held that National Courts are precluded from issuing injunction against hostingserviceprovidersrequiringthemtoinstallafilteringsystem.22Mr. Kumar then went on to highlight the Indian position. In India, the InformationTechnologyAct(ITAct)wasenactedin2000toprovidealegalframeworkforpromotionof e-commerce and e-transactions. §79 of the Act provides that intermediaries are notliableincertaincases.Priortotheamendmentin2008,theonuswasontheintermediariestoprovethattheyhadnoknowledge.TheKeralaHighCourtinFirozv.StateofKeralaheldthatnotificationsunder§70oftheITActweresubjecttotheCopyrightAct,asthelatterisaspecial act and cannot be bartered away.23Therefore, the protection to a computerresourceisrestrictedtogovernmentwork.Thisdecisioniscurrentlyonappeal.Further,inGoogleIndiav.VishakaIndustriesLtd. (2011), the courtheld that safeharbourunder §79cannot be used if the article is not removed even after being aware of the content, inaccordancewiththenoticeandtakedownregime.24Mr.KumarstatedthattherewerenospecificprovisionsforISPstandardspriortothe2012amendments to theCopyrightAct. Primary infringementwas,however,dealtwithunder§§1325and51(i)(a)26andsecondaryinfringementunder§51(i)(b).TheDelhiHighCourtinSCILv.MySpace(2011)providedtheframeworkofthelawonintermediaryliability.27

18GoogleFranceSARLv.LouisVuittonMalletierSA,3JoinedCasesC-236/08,C-237/08&C-238/08,2010ECJEUR-LexLEXIS119(Mar.23,2010).19L’orealv.Ebay,C-324/09,JudgmentoftheCourt(GrandChamber)of12July2011.20TwentiethCenturyFoxvBritishTelecommunicationsplc[2011]EWHC1981(Ch).21Scarletv.SABAM,CaseC-70/10,JudgmentoftheCourt(ThirdChamber)of24November2011.22SABAMv.Netlog,CJEUC-360/10.23Firozv.TheStateOfKerala,BailAppl.No.233of2010.24GoogleIndiav.VishakaIndustriesLtd,Crl.P.No.7207of2009.25§13Worksinwhichcopyrightsubsists

(1) SubjecttotheprovisionsofthissectionandtheotherprovisionsofthisAct,copyrightshallsubsistthroughoutIndiainthefollowingclassesofworks,thatistosay,-(a) originalliterary,dramatic,musicalandartisticworks;(b) cinematographfilms;and(c) soundrecordings;

(2) Copyright shallnot subsist inanyworkspecified in sub-section (1),other thanawork towhichtheprovisionsofsection40orsection41apply,unless,-(i) inthecaseofapublishedwork,theworkisfirstpublishedinIndia,orwherethework

isfirstpublishedoutsideIndia,theauthorisatthedateofsuchpublication,orinacasewheretheauthorwasdeadatthatdate,wasatthetimeofhisdeath,acitizenofIndia;




Referring to the position post the 2012 amendment, he noted that §52(1)(b) providesabsolute immunity, akin to conduit safe harbors in EU Directive, to intermediariesprovidingincidentalortransientstorageofthirdpartycontent.28Thetextoftheprovisionappears to provide complete exemption to intermediaries from infringement. §52(1)(c)dealswith transient or incidental storage for the purpose of providing electronic link oraccessorintegration.29Thisprovision,ontheotherhand,ashepointsout,isnotabsoluteand lays down a procedure for notice and take down. The Report of the Standing

(ii) inthecaseofanunpublishedworkotherthana[workofarchitecture]theauthorisat

thedateofthemakingoftheworkacitizenofIndiaordomiciledinIndia;and(iii) inthecaseof[workofarchitecture]theworkislocatedinIndia.Explanation.- inthecaseofaworkofjointauthorship,theconditionsconferringcopyrightspecifiedinthissub-sectionshallbesatisfiedbyalltheauthorsofthework.

(3) Copyrightshallnotsubsist-(a) in any cinematograph film a substantial part of the film is an infringement of the

copyrightinanyotherwork;(b) in any sound recordingmade in respect of a literary, dramatic ormusicalwork, if in

makingthesoundrecording,copyrightinsuchworkhasbeeninfringed.(4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not affect the separate

copyrightinanyworkinrespectofwhichorasubstantialpartofwhich,thefilm,orasthecasemaybe,thesoundrecordingismade.

(5) Inthecaseofa[workofarchitecture]copyrightshallsubsistonlyintheartisticcharacteranddesignandshallnotextenttoprocessesormethodsofconstruction)

26§51WhencopyrightinfringedCopyrightinaworkshallbedeemedtobeinfringed(a) whenanyperson,withoutalicencegrantedbytheownerofthecopyrightortheRegistrar

ofCopyrightsunderthisActorincontraventionoftheconditionsofalicencesograntedorofanyconditionimposedbyacompetentauthorityunderthisAct:(i) doesanything,theexclusiverighttodowhichisbythisActconferredupontheowner

ofthecopyright,or(ii) permitsforprofitanyplacetobeusedforthecommunicationoftheworktothepublic

where suchcommunicationconstitutesan infringementof thecopyright in thework,unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that suchcommunicationtothepublicwouldbeaninfringementofcopyright;

27SCILv.MySpace,CS(OS)No.2682/2008.28§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright

(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(b) the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical

processofelectronictransmissionorcommunicationtothepublic;29§52(1)(b)Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright

(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(c) transientor incidentalstorageofaworkorperformanceforthepurposeofproviding

electronic links, accessor integration,where such links, accessor integrationbasnotbeenexpresslyprohibitedbytherightbolder,unlessthepersonresponsibleisawareorbasreasonablegroundsforbelievingthatsuchstorageisofaninfringingcopy:

Providedthat if thepersonresponsible for thestorageof thecopybasreceivedawritten complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that suchtransient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for thestorageshallrefrainfromfacilitatingsuchaccessforaperiodoftwenty-onedaysortillbereceivesanorderfromthecompetentcourtrefrainingfromfacilitatingaccessandincasenosuchorderisreceivedbeforetheexpiryofsuchperiodoftwenty-onedays,bemaycontinuetoprovidethefacilityofsuchaccess.




Committee provides that the purpose of §§52(1)(b) and (c), per the Department ofInformationTechnology,wastoimmunizeintermediariessubjecttonoticeandtakedownregime.The21dayperiodfornoticeandtakedownwasfeltsufficient.Mr.Kumararguedthat§52(1)(c)isunclearonhostofintermediariesunderitsambit.FeedbackMr.AnanthPadmanabhancommentedthattheMySpacedecisiontookanarrowstanceonthe expression ‘person responsible is aware or reasonably grounds for believing’ that acopy is infringing. §§52(1)(c) retains the language in the decision. In light of this, Mr.Padmanabhan indicated that the MySpace decision was bad law and should bereconsideredintheappeal.Prof.N.S.Gopalakrishnanclarifiedthateventhoughthesamelanguagehasbeenused,§51has to be read in light of §52. As theMySpace judgment did not rule on the exemptionunder §52, it does not hold as good law after the amendment. Further, he said that thejudgmentwasprimafacieinconsistent,asitreliedonlegislativeintentiontoconstrueonepartandfollowedastrictlytextualinterpretationfortheotherhalf.Mr. Pranesh Prakash also expressed the view that as per the Intermediaries GuidelinesRulesunder§79of the ITAct,copyrightnoticeswereseeminglypermitted.§81of the ITAct,however,excludestheCopyrightActandthereforerulesare inconsistentwiththeITAct.30Hefurtheropinedthat§52(1)(b)isapplicabletoISPs,VPNs,CDNsetc.byprovidingfor transient or incidental storage, §52(1)(c)would be applicable to search engines. Theapplicabilitywith respect to other storage services such as Youtube andMySpacewoulddependoninterpretationoftheword‘incidental.’Roundtable discussion on the impact of the amendment on thetechnologysectorinIndiaV.C.Vivekanandan Mr.Vivekanandanstarted thediscussionbyreferring to themain

themeoftheconference.Hesaidthecontextofpresentdiscussionis about the balance between three players; consumers, creatorsand distributor or decimators. He further stated that there is noprecise formula for achieving this balance, however, utilitarianprinciplesisoneguidingprincipletostartwith.Mr. Vivekanandan led the discussion to ascertain the real reasonwhyDRMsandsimilarmeasureshavebeeninsertedatallinIndiaevenwithoutanytreatyobligationordemandsfromstakeholders.The inclusion of such provisions was further questioned onaccount of the advanced nature of DRMs, the problems faced byDRMsinotherjurisdictionsandtheproblematicnatureoftheveryconcept of DRMs. Examples from the US such as the recall of e-Books following a copyright violation by Kindle and thecontroversy surrounding the use cartridges in Lexmark printersnot manufactured by Lexmark, further emphasized whether a

30InformationTechnologyAct,2000,§81ActtohaveoverridingeffectTheprovisionsofthisActshallhaveeffectnotwithstandinganythingconsistenttherewithcontainedinanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce.




needless complication had been introduced of DRMs. HespeculatedastowhetherwehadjumpedthegunonDRMs.

ShouvikBadru Mr.Badruwasoftheopinionthatthroughthisexercise,Indiawasattempting toplay catchupwith the technological advancementsand open new avenues in the field. The provisions, however, areambiguousinplacesandthisneedsfurtheramendments.

Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan, on this point, said that the core group constituted in 1997essentially had a threefold mandate, i.e., to make necessary amendments to make theCopyright Act TRIPS compliant, WCT and WPPT compliant and to deal the practicalproblemsofworkingwith theCopyrightAct.OnlycompliancewithTRIPSwasaddressedthrough computer software and reverse engineering provisions. In 2000, the committeewas re-set up to look at WCT and WPPT compliance and practical problems inimplementingtheCopyrightAct.Evenin2009,therewasdefinitepressuretofollowDMCAandincorporateprovisionswithrespecttoDRM.TheCommitteewasfullyconsciousoftheproblems faced in other jurisdictions after having examined the models followed inAustralia,Japan,USAandEurope.Thus,therewasdefinitepressuretoincludeprovisions,irrespectiveofwhetherthisdemandstemmedfromIndiacompaniesorIndiancompaniesrepresentedthroughforeignentities.ShamnadBasheer Prof. Basheer was of the view that the provisions are a very

skillfullydraftedpieceof legislation.Ontheonehand, itshowstotheworldthatIndiaisindeedtechnologicallysavvyanduptodatewith global developments in copyright law with respect totechnology,whileatthesametime,doesnotdoanythingspecific.

PraneshPrakash Mr.Prakash,referringtoLexmarkincident,statedthateveniftherewas a right to break the digital lock, therewas noway the samecouldbeenforcedorexercised.EventheConsumerProtectionActdoesnotoffersuchprotection.

Dr.MadhukarSinhaclarifiedthatalthoughitcertainlyseemedthatIndiawafunctioningona foreignpush, it isnot always the case and thatDRMs,while toutedas a ‘flagbearerofmodernity’ ina2006draft, shouldbeunderstoodwithmultiple considerationsprimarilywhethertheendsareevenrequiredandwhetherthemeanstoacquireitshallbefair.V.C.Vivekanandan Dr. V. C. Vivekanandan opined that itwas debatablewhether the

provisionsstrikea fairbalance fromtheviewpointof consumers.Theprovisionsappear tohavebeen inserted toplacate theUS insomesense.

Prof.BasheerontheoverlapbetweenCl.(b)and(c)of§§52(1),askedthepanelistsiftheword ‘access’ in Cl. (c), given a broader meaning, takes away the exceptions in cl. (b).Furthermore,theModeratoropenedthefloorforcommentsontheflippantnoticeandtakedownmechanismwhichappearstobeharmfultoconsumerinterest.RajendraKumar Mr.Kumarobservedthatcourtscouldinterprettheseprovisionsin

light of legislative history, international debate etc. He, however,saidthattherewasroomforarbitraryinterpretation.

PraneshPrakash Mr.Prakashwasoftheopinionthatsinceboththeclausescanbeharmoniously constructed, by providing different spaces to the




two clauses, there may not be any actual problem. § 52(1)(c),however, was apprehensive of the phrase ‘unless expresslyprohibited by the right holder.’ Citing the practices of DozierInternetLawFirminUSandtheNationalInformaticsCentre(NIC),he stated that a narrow construction of the phrase could limithyperlinking,whichisfoundingfeatureofHTTP.

Prof.Basheerobservedthatthescopeof‘access’inCl.(c)hasaneffectoflimitingthescopeof Cl. (b) and expressedhis skepticismonharmonious construction of the provisions bycourtsinIndia.Prof. Gopalakrishnan argued that the difference between both clauses rests on the‘technical processes’ involved in the transient or incidental storage. If the incidental ortransientstorageisforlongerduration,thereisaneedforchecksandbalancesandCl.(c)addressestheseconcerns.Inconcludingthediscussion,theProf.Basheeraskedthepanelistsifthereareanyprivacyconcernsslinkinginasaresultoftheamendments.PraneshPrakash Mr.Prakashnotedthat§52(1)(zb)and§65Agivesrise toprivacy

concerns as the TPM mechanism permits tracking of content.While a sighted person need not provide any proof of identity,personswithdisabilitieshavetoprovetheirdisability inordertoavailrightsgrantedintheCopyrightAct.




DAYIIMr.GRRaghavender,Director&RegistrarofCopyrightsMHRD,HistoryoftheamendmentMr. Raghavender started by elucidating the requirement of striking a balance betweenprivaterightsandpubicinterestinthesphereofcopyrights.ThisbalancecanbesourcedtotheBerneConvention,Art.7oftheTRIPSandalsotothepreambleofalltheWIPOTreaties,thelatestbeingtheBeijingTreaty.Thesetreatiesrecognizetheneedforbalancinginterestsin order to create access to knowledge for the purposes of research, education, librariesand the disabled without harming the moral rights of the owner of the copyright. Inpursuance of this goal of balancing interests, India sent a fivemember delegation to the1996 WIPO internet treaty and diplomatic conference, to enable harmonization of thedomesticcopyright lawstotheTRIPSlevel.Thereafter, thedelegationrecommendedthatthe Government sign the WPTC. This was, however, deferred by the Government untilnationalconsultationswiththedifferentstakeholdershadbeencompleted.From the year 1998 to 2006 consultations with the various stakeholders continued,pursuant towhich the final draft wasmade public in order to enable comments on thesame.Inaddition,regionwideconsultationswerealsoundertakenbythecopyrightoffice.Thereafter, final demands were made by the film industry for a term extension in thecinematographicfield.Inordertoevaluatethisdemand,theSub-CommitteeunderDr.N.S.Gopalakrishnandrewcomparative links from the US and the EU specifically the UK. In this regard, the UKprovided for a term of life plus 70 years, which was later perceived by EU courts asillogical. In India,however,duetothepressuresustainedby filmmakers, thegovernmentthought that the principal director should also be accorded some benefit in light of hiscontributiontocreativityandacontractexistingbetweenthedirectorandproducertothateffect.ThisargumentwasnotacceptedbytheParliamentaryStandingCommittee.Furthermore,theamendmentsoughttorecognizethecontributionartists,composersandlyricists for their work and hence performer rights were granted. This was necessarypursuant to ruling in the IPRSv.EasternMotionCompany (1997) wherein the SupremeCourt though recognized rights of performer’s, held that rights to royalties weretransferredtoproducersandmusiclabelsasper§17(b).In1993,authorsandcomposersandmusiccompaniescametoanunderstandingaccordingtowhichroyaltiesonperformancerightswereagreedtobesharedequallybetweenthemasper internationalnorms.This continued till2004,however,problemsarosewhen fewauthors objected to the arrangement. Therefore, a need was felt to recognize rights ofperformers distinct from cinematographic film or sound recording. This amendmentsoughttoilluminatewhatinJ.KrishnaIyer’swordswasa‘penumbral’areainlaw(IPRSv.EasternMotionCompany).Underlying the ideabehind this amendment is theprincipleofequitable remuneration,which canbe traced toArt. 13of theBerneConventionand thepatent law of Germany. The phrase ‘right to receive royalties’ by authors and musiccomposers was inspired from German copyright law. Art. 12 of Rome Convention alsoempowers states to protect rights of performers when business models fails to respectequitableremuneration.




Thereafter, Mr. Raghavender moved on to speak about the history of the Copyright(Amendment) Act 2012 with regard to the proviso of §18. This proviso provides thatassignmentcanonlybeinamediumexistingatthattime.ThisconceptwasborrowedfromjurisdictionsofGermany,Italy,FranceandmanyEUcourtdecisions.Thenextaspectthatwasdiscussedwasthechapteronlicenses,whichunderwentaradicalchange.Afterhavinggivenabrief andconciseoverviewof the chapter,Mr.Raghavenderwent on to illuminate the challenges with regard to implementing the provision ofstatutory licensing for cover version broadcasting. The differential pricing for radio andtelevisionbroadcastersin§31Dwasinspiredfromresalerightsunder§52.Mr. Raghavender expressed dissatisfaction on the Copyright Act previously for lack ofrecognitionofrightsofdisabled.Hisreferencewaswithregardtospecialprovisionsforthedisabled introduced in the latest amendments. As acknowledged by the ParliamentaryStandingCommittee, the limitationandexceptionsexistingpriortotheamendmentwereinsufficient.After informalconsultationswithexperts, the Indian lawhasbeenalignedtotheChileanModel.Therefore,currentlytheCopyrightActrecognizesanyaccessibleformatbeing shared for non-profitable purposes as opposed to special formats in the previousproposal. If such sharing is for profit purposes, a provision for compulsory license wasprovided.ThoughIndiahasrecognizedandincorporatedtheseexceptionsintotheCopyrightAct,theinadequacy in limitations is still mirrored in the international framework and manyinternationaljurisdictions.The25thSCCRistryingtofinalizealegaltextfortheadoptionofatreatyforthevisuallyimpairedandprintdisabled.GarneringsupportfromthereluctantUSandEUwill,however,becritical for therealizationof this treatywhich isgoing tobepresentedintheGeneralAssemblyinthespecialSCCR.FeedbackInansweringaquestionposedbyMr.PraneshPrakashwithregardtoextensionoftermforphotographs,Mr.Raghavenderstatedthattheissuewasintensivelydiscussedbythecorecommittee and a unanimous decisionwasmade to harmonize this provisionwithWCT.Thiswas in lightof theneed toprotect thecommercial interestsof thephotographers inthisdigitalage.However,heagreedwithconcernonthedifficulty in identifyingtherightholder.Adistinguishedparticipantsoughtclarificationonthereasonbehindtheprovisoto§17(e)of the Copyright Act which deals with Cls. b & c of §17. Mr. Raghavender clarified thatthoughtheprovisowasplacedattheendof§17owingtoadraftingtechnicality.




SESSIONIIICopyrightLimitationsandExceptions

Thediscussionsundertherubricoflimitationsandexceptions,wascenteredaroundparallelimports, involuntary licenses, educational exceptions, and exceptions relating to disability.Against the backdrop of the conference’s theme of fair balance, the speakers examinedwhethersuchbalancehadactuallybeenachievedbytheamendment intheaforementionedfields.Theunderlyingideawastoexaminetheramificationstheamendmentwouldhaveontherightsoftheowner,users/consumersofthecopyrightedworks.PresentationsweremadebyMr.PraneshPrakash (PolicyDirector,Center for InternetandSociety)andMr.AbhishekMalhotra(Partner,TMTLawPractice).ThepanelistsfortheroundtablediscussionwereMr.SamTaraporewala(Director,Xavier’sResourceCenterfortheVisuallyChallenged),MrAmlanMohanty (Student, National Law School Bangalore) and Ms. Ujjwalla Uppaludi (Student,National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata). Mr. G. R. Raghavender (Director andRegistrarofCopyrights,MHRD)moderatedthesession.Mr.PraneshPrakash,PolicyDirectorfortheCenterforInternetandSocietyParallelImportsMr. Prakash argued that the international exhaustion of copyrights is desirable fordevelopingnationssuchasIndiaandbestsuitedinthedigitalage.Mr.Prakash,examiningthelegalityoffirstsaledoctrineundertheCopyrightAct,amplydemonstratedtheflawsinthereasoningof Indiancourtson the issue.He furtherwenton toexamine the ingenuitydisplayedbyacourtinprohibitingexportoflow-pricededitionsfromIndia.The doctrine of first sale is based on the fact that once a book is sold, the buyer getsownership rightover thebook,whichmeans it ishispropertyandhecanuse, throw,ordestroy it as he wishes. What he cannot do, however, is to reproduce given that theintellectual property rights in the book have not been transferred. The concept ofownership,therefore,entitlestheownertosellhiscopyofthebooktoanyonewithoutanyconditionsattached.Internationalexhaustionisinlinewiththeconceptofownership.Mr.PraneshthenwentontodiscussvariousprovisionsintheCopyrightAct,whichrelateto theprincipleof exhaustion.Heobserved that therewasnoprovisionof theCopyrightAct bywhich the owner or licensee of copyright is given the exclusive right to import acopyrightedworkintoIndia.Mr. Prakash argues that the Copyright Act nowhere prohibits or grants the owner orlicensee an exclusive right to importation of copyrighted works into India. §51(b)(iv)prohibitsimportof‘infringing’copiesofawork.Asper§2(m),areproductionofaliterarywork is deemed to be an ‘infringing copy’ ‘if such reproduction ‘ismade or imported incontraventionoftheprovisionsofthisAct.’31Neither§2(m)nor§51(b)(iv)clarifywhether

31§2(m)‘infringingcopy’means

(i) inrelationtoaliterary,dramatic,musicalorartisticwork,areproductionthereofotherwisethanintheformofacinematographicfilm;

(ii) inrelationtoacinematographicfilm,acopyofthefilmmadeonanymediumbyanymeans;(iii) inrelationtoasoundrecording,anyotherrecordingembodyingthesamesoundrecording,

madebyanymeans;(iv) inrelationtoaprogrammeorperformanceinwhichsuchabroadcastreproductionrightor

a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a




importationofworkscontravenes theCopyrightAct.Therefore,onehas to look into§14(meaningofcopyright) and §51 (whencopyright infringed) to ascertain whether parallelimportsaffectanyoftheexclusiverightsofauthors.§14nowheregrantsanexclusiverighttoimporttoacopyrightowner.Theprovision,however,clearlylaysdownthatinsofarasliterary,dramaticormusicalworksareconcerned,theownerhasexclusiveright ‘toissuecopiesoftheworktothepublicnotbeingcopiesalreadyincirculation.’Furthermore,theexplanation to this provision clarifies that ‘a copy which has been sold once shall bedeemedtobeacopyalreadyincirculation.’Whatdoesthis‘circulation’mean?Isitlimitedto circulation in India or does it include circulation of the work aboard as well? It wasnoted that thewordingof theprovisionwas amended in1994order toundoa series oferroneousinterpretationsgivenbycourtsonexhaustion.In a pre-1994 decision, the Delhi High Court in Penguin decision32(1983) interpretedimportationtoaffectowner’s‘righttopublish’andthereforeitisillegaltoimportcopiesoftheworkwithouttheconsentoftheauthor.ThisinterpretationisbaselessandunderminesthenotionofprivityofcontractandthefirstsaledoctrineelaboratedbyintheBobMerrilldecision33(1908) in the US. The 1994 amendment was brought out to overturn theerroneous interpretation in the Penguin decision.34The 1994 amendment additionallyincorporateda legal fictionwhereinbookspublished internationally aredeemed tohavebeen firstpublishedwithin India.Unfortunately, theBombayHighCourt in theEuroKidsdecision 35 (2005) relied on the Penguin decision without referring to the 1994amendments.ThedecisionoftheBombayHighCourt isperincuriamas it failstorefertotheapplicable law.Similarly,WarnerBrotherv.Santosh36,whichdealtwithimportationofDVDsappliedtheflawedreasoninginprohibitingparallelimportsundertheCopyrightAct.Mr.Pranesh thenhighlighted theproblemofrestrictiononexports.Nocountryregulatesexports through the copyright law. The US and few Latin American countries, however,imposerestrictionexportofworksmanufacturedwithoutthepermissionoftheauthor.Onthe other hand, the decision of the Delhi High Court in JohnWiley v. Prabhat ChandraKumarJain37(2010) recognized right of owners to export under the Copyright Act. JohnWiley&SonsInc.,basedinNewYork,exclusivelylicensedtherightsovercertainbookstoWiley India Pvt. Ltd. These bookswere sold at a reduced cost in the Indianmarket andwereclearlylabeledasbeing‘WileyStudentEditionrestrictedforsaleonlyinBangladesh,Myanmar, India, Indonesia,Nepal,Pakistan,Philippines, SriLankaandVietnam.’Anotherlabelonthesamebookread:‘Thebookforsaleonlyinthecountrytowhichfirstconsigned

cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy orsoundrecordingismadeorimportedincontraventionoftheprovisionsofthisAct.

32PenguinBooksLtd.v.IndiaBookDistributors&Ors,AIR1985Del29.33Bobbs-MerrillCo.v.Straus,210U.S.339(1908).34TheCopyright(Amendment)Act1994,§14MeaningofcopyrightExplanation.-Forthepurposesofthissection,acopywhichhasbeensoldonceshallbedeemedtobeacopyalreadyincirculation.35EurokidsInternationalPvt.Ltd.v.IndiaBookDistributorsEgmont,2005(6)BomCR198.36WarnerBros.EntertainmentInc.vsMr.SantoshV.G,CS(OS)No.1682/2006.37 John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain, IA No.11331/2008 in CS (OS)No.1960/2008.




byWileyIndiaPvt.Ltdandmaynotbere-exported.’ThenoticerestrictsWileyIndiaPvt.Ltd to publish and sell reprint editions only in the territories mentioned above.Furthermore, John Wiley & Sons Inc., imposes restrictions on buyers by attaching aconditionalityforpreventingexportofbookstotheUS.JusticeManmohanSinghheldtheactionsofresaletobeinvalid,however,onthegroundsofcopyrightinsteadofthecontract law.Thereasoningadoptedbythecourtwasthreefold:(a)rightsof theownerandlicenseeanddistinct;(b)the licenseecannotpassonabettertitletothebuyerthanwhathehas(nemodatquodnonhabet);and(c)saleorofferforsaleconstitutesissuance.Mr.Praneshdemonstratesthattheprinciplenemodatquodnonhabetis irrelevant as there is no sub-license taking place between the licensee and the buyerinsteadthereisasaleofthebook.ThisjudgmentdisregardsthelogicappliedinBobMerrillbyconflatinglicenseandsaleintocopyrightlaw.Thisdecisionisfatallyflawedandshowsalack of understanding of copyright law. Mr. Pranesh then went on to show how thisreasoning does not apply to foreign works even though they are subject to the samelimitationsandexceptionsimposedbytheCopyrightAct.FeedbackThe presentation elicited a comment from Mr. Raghavender who opined that empiricalstudiesinNewZealandhadshownthatwithparallelimportstheeconomyflourished,thusshowingtheinternationalexhaustionisconducivetodevelopingnations.Healsosaidthatthe National Commission of Applied Economic Research was collecting data that wouldshowhowparallelimportscouldbenefitIndia,thusre-introducingtheprovisoto§2(m).38AbhishekMalhotra,PartnerTMTLawPractice,InvoluntaryLicensing:MusictoUs-earsMr.Malhotraemphasizedonthedualobjectiveof intellectualpropertyrights,rewardfortheauthorforhisworkbygrantingalimitedmonopolyandtheultimategoalofmaximumoutreach of the work to general public. Mr. Malhotra notes instances when the limitedmonopolyofauthorsimpedesthegoale.g.authorsrefusingtolicenseworktothepublicorexercising control to limit dissemination ofwork or imposing excessive or unreasonablerates of royalty or of the like. In order to remedy the situation and restore the goal ofintellectual property, copyright law provides for non-voluntary or involuntary licensing.Involuntary licenses are of two kinds; namely, compulsory and statutory licenses. Theunderlying principle of such licenses is to eliminate restriction on use of intellectualproperty.The basis for involuntary licensing can be traced back to the UKAct of 1842where theprovision was introduced to prevent misuse of rights by owners. The need for theprovisionwasfeltasthetermofmonopolywassoughttobeextended,topermitworksofauthorswhono longerexistbut access isbeing restrictedbyownersand importationofcopyrightedworks. Prior to the amendments, the Copyright Act limited this situation to

38TheCopyright(Amendment)Bill2010,§2(m)‘infringingcopy’means

ProvidedthatacopyofaworkpublishedinanycountryoutsideIndiawiththepermissionoftheauthoroftheworkandimportedfromthatcountryintoIndiashallnotbedeemedtobeaninfringingcopy.




§52(1)(j) with a view to encourage the recording industry. The basis for the erstwhile§52(1)(j),whichhasnowtranscendedinto§31C,isArt.13oftheTRIPS.39The justification for granting involuntary licenses is a compromise on the unrestrictedmonopoly granted on intellectual property. Firstly, refusal to license any work couldimpede the flowof information,which could affect the growthof any industry.Secondly,failure to avail the facilities for production and distribution can reduce dissemination ofworks to general public. Thirdly, impose onerous conditions to license works, which iscontrary to goals of copyright law.Fourthly, when the negotiated price is very high andthereisfeltneedtosubsidizeworkstoanyparticulargrouporinstitution.TheprovisionshaveattractedheightenedimportancefollowingthecomplaintagainstSuperCassettesforabuse of monopoly having adverse impact on competition before the CompetitionCommissionofIndia.

39§31CStatutorylicenseforcoverversions

(1) Anypersondesirousofmakingacoverversion,beingasoundrecordinginrespectofanyliterary,dramaticormusicalwork,wheresoundrecordingsof thatworkhavebeenmadebyorwiththelicenceorconsentoftheowneroftherightinthework,maydososubjecttothe provisions of this section: Provided that such sound recordings shall be in the samemedium as the last recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer incurrentcommercialuse.

(2) Thepersonmakingthesoundrecordingsshallgivepriornoticeofhisintentiontomakethesoundrecordingsinthemannerasmaybeprescribed,andprovideinadvancecopiesofallcoversorlabelswithwhichthesoundrecordingsaretobesold,andpayinadvance,totheownerofrightsineachworkroyaltiesinrespectofallcopiestobemadebyhim,attheratefixedbytheCopyrightBoardinthisbehalf:Providedthatsuchsoundrecordingsshallnotbe sold or issued in any form of packaging orwith any cover or label which is likely tomislead or confuse the public is to their identity, and in particular shall not contain thenameordepictinanywayanyperformerofanearliersoundrecordingofthesameworkoranycinematographfilminwhichsuchsoundrecordingwasincorporatedand,further,shallstateonthecoverthatitisacoverversionmadeunderthissection.

(3) Thepersonmakingsuchsoundrecordingsshallnotmakeanyalteration inthe literaryormusicalworkwhichhasnotbeenmadepreviouslybyorwiththeconsentoftheownerofrights, or which is not technically necessary for the purpose of making the soundrecordings:Providedthatsuchsoundrecordingsshallnotbemadeuntil theexpirationoffivecalendaryearsaftertheendoftheyearinwhichthefirstsoundrecordingsoftheworkwasmade.

(4) One royalty in respect of such sound recordings shall be paid for a minimum of fiftythousand copies of eachwork during each calendar year inwhich copies of it aremade:ProvidedthattheCopyrightBoardmay,bygeneralorder,fixalowerminimuminrespectofworksinaparticularlanguageordialecthavingregardtothepotentialcirculationofsuchworks.

(5) The person making such sound recordings shall maintain such registers and books ofaccountinrespectthereof,includingfulldetailsofexistingstockasmaybeprescribedandshallallowtheownerofrightsorhisdulyauthorisedagentorrepresentativetoinspectallrecordsandbooksofaccountrelatingtosuchsoundrecording:

Provided that if on a complaint brought before the CopyrightBoard to the effectthattheownerofrightshasnotbeenpaidinfullforanysoundrecordingspurportingtobemade in pursuance of this section, the Copyright Board is, prima facie, satisfied that thecomplaintisgenuine,itmaypassanorderexpartedirectingthepersonmakingthesoundrecording to cease from making further copies and, after holding such inquiry as itconsiders necessary, make such further order as it may deem fit, including an order forpaymentofroyalty.Explanation.—For the purposes of this section ‘cover version’ means a sound recordingmadeinaccordancewiththissection.




Mr.Malhotraidentifiedfourgroundsforopposingnon-voluntarylicensingregime.Firstly,anon-voluntary licenseschemeiscontraryto thebasicphilosophyofcopyright law,whichpermits freemarkettodeterminethepriceofawork.Secondly, faircompensationcanbebetterarrivedatbynegotiationswiththeownerratherthananimpositionthroughacourtmandated process. Thirdly, from an economic standpoint, it is administrativelycumbersome and time consuming to obtain licenses through non-voluntary licensingregime.Fourthly,itgivesadequatescopeforabusebyvestedindividuals.Notwithstanding the opposition, the latest amendments introduced involuntary licensingtotheCopyrightAct,withaspecialfocusonthemusicindustrybyvirtueof§§31,31C,31Dand33A(2).Theunderlyingneedforthiswasdemandforunreasonableroyaltyratesandthewithholdingofworkfromthegeneralpublic.§31providescompulsorylicensesundertwocircumstances:(a)whentheownerwithholdswork from thepublic affecting reproductionandperformanceof theworkand (b)whentheownerimposesunreasonabletermsforbroadcastingofthework.TheCopyrightBoardhasearlierclarified thatanunreasonableroyaltyratedoesnotamount towithholdingoftheworkfromthepublic.PostthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinEntertainmentNetwork(India)Limitedv.SuperCassettes40(2008), it is clear that §§31(a) and (b) are to be readdisjunctivelyandthatunreasonableratecouldamountto ‘withholding frompublic.’Doestheprovisionprovidearightforbroadcasterstoobtaincompulsorylicense?Mr.Malhotranoted that thequestionwas left unansweredby the SupremeCourt.He, however, addedthat the restriction on compulsory license herein is not on the grant but on thedeterminationofroyaltyrate.§31C,previouslyin§52(2)(1)(j),increasedmoratoriumto5years,andfurthertheprovisoto§31C(1) laiddown that the coverversionbemade in the samemediumas thatof theoriginal sound recording. The basis for this limitation is to encourage the recordingindustryandtoencouragenewperformersasitremovedtheinitialhandicapandpermitsperformance of popular songs. The proviso, however, does not appear to serve theintended purpose. Mr. Malhotra additionally noted that the impact of amendment isunclearconsideringtheadvanceoftechnologyanddisseminationofworks.§31Ddealingwith statutory license41for broadcastingof literary andmusicalworks andsoundrecordings isambiguousandhasadequatescope forchallenging itsvalidity in the

40EntertainmentNetworkv.SuperCassetteIndustries,C.Appl.Nos.5178-5180of2005.41§31DStatutorylicenseforbroadcastingofliteraryandmusicalworksandsoundrecording

(1) Any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of abroadcast or by way of performance of a literary or musical work and sound recordingwhichhasalreadybeenpublishedmaydososubjecttotheprovisionsofthissection.

(2) Thebroadcastingorganisationshallgivepriornotice,insuchmannerasmaybeprescribed,of its intention tobroadcast thework stating theduration and territorial coverageof thebroadcast,andshallpaytotheownerofrightsineachworkroyaltiesinthemannerandattheratefixedbytheCopyrightBoard.

(3) Theratesof royalty for radiobroadcastingshallbedifferent fromtelevisionbroadcastingand the copyright Board shall fix separate rates for radio broadcasting and televisionbroadcasting.

(4) Infixingthemannerandtherateofroyaltyundersub-section(2),theCopyrightBoardmayrequirethebroadcastingorganisationtopayanadvancetotheownersofrights.

(5) Thenamesoftheauthorsandtheprincipalperformersoftheworkshall,exceptincaseofthe broadcasting organisation communicating such work by way of performance, beannouncedwiththebroadcast.




future.Mr.Malhotrastatedthattheprovisioncamouflagedasstatutorylicenseismoreakintoacompulsorylicense.Firstly,theroyaltyratesarenotfixedbythestatuteinsteadlefttobe determined by the Copyright Board. Secondly, in a statutory license scheme operatesimmediatelyoncetheworkispublishedandwhereastheprovisionrequirespriornoticeofthe broadcasting organization to broadcast the work. Additionally, §31D(3) prescribesseparate tariff rates for radio and television broadcasting industry, raising doubts onwhether the differential pricing extends to other forms of broadcast. The issue iscomplicated in the case ofwebcast and online streaming, as the definition for broadcastundertheCopyrightActrecognizesnosuchdistinction.The§33A(2)revertedto1994situation,whichpermitsonetochallengethetariffschemedeterminedbycopyrightsocieties.42FeedbackInresponsetothequeryonthelimitationsundertheCompetitionAct,2002inentertainingdisputespertaining tomonopolygrantedunderanyof the intellectualproperty laws,Mr.MalhotraclarifiedthatthelimitationislimitedaslongasthemonopolydoesnotadverselyimpactcompetitioninIndia.Pranesh Prakash noted that there is an apparent tension in the statutory licensingprovisionspertaining to coverversions. Inparticular,hehighlighted§31C(3)encouragesreproductionoftheoriginalversionwithoutanyalterationinliteraryormusicalworkandat the same time it requires cover versions to be different from the original in terms ofartwork.Mr.Malhotraobservedtheprovisionisalimitationtocopyrightinfringementandtherefore needs to be interpreted strictly. The intended purpose of the provision is toencouragecoverrecordingandthatisservedbypermittingcopyingofliteraryormusicalwork.

(6) No freshalteration toany literaryormusicalwork,which isnot technicallynecessary for

thepurposeofbroadcasting,otherthanshorteningtheworkforconvenienceofbroadcast,shallbemadewithouttheconsentoftheownersofrights.

(7) Thebroadcastingorganisationshall—(a) maintainsuchrecordsandbooksofaccount,andrender to theownersof rightssuch

reportsandaccounts;and(b) allowtheownerofrightsorhisdulyauthorisedagentorrepresentativeto inspectall

records and books of account relating to such broadcast, in suchmanner asmay beprescribed.

(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of any licence issued or any agreemententeredintobeforethecommencementoftheCopyright(Amendment)Act,2012.

42§33ACompulsorylicenseinunpublishedorpublishedworks(1) Every copyright society shall publish its Tariff Scheme in such manner as may be

prescribed.(2) Anypersonwhoisaggrievedbythetariffschememayappeal totheCopyrightBoardand

theBoardmay, if satisfied after holding such inquiry as itmay considernecessary,makesuch orders as may be required to remove any unreasonable element, anomaly orinconsistencytherein:

Provided that the aggrieved person shall pay to the copyright society any fee asmaybeprescribedthathasfallenduebeforemakinganappealtotheCopyrightBoardandshallcontinuetopaysuchfeeuntiltheappealisdecided,andtheBoardshallnotissueanyorderstayingthecollectionofsuchfeependingdisposaloftheappeal:

Provided further that the Copyright Board may after hearing the parties fix aninterim tariff and direct the aggrieved parties tomake the payment accordingly pendingdisposaloftheappeal.




AmlanMohanty5thyearstudent,NLSIUCopyrightingeducation:Whitheraccess?–AnoverviewofeducationalexceptionswithintheCopyrightregimeAmlanexploredtheeducationalexceptionsmadeinthelatestamendmentsinthebackdropof copyright aggression by publishers over photocopying outlets at theDelhi University.The dispute involves the legality of ‘course packs’ prepared for instructional purposeextractedfromvarioussources.Primarily,theissuesbeforethecourtconcernthelegalityofcoursepacksandquantitativelimitsonphotocopyingwork.§§52(1)(a)43and (i)44provide exceptions to copyrights for educational purposes. In fewjurisdictions, copyrights laws specifically prohibit reprography. India, on the other hand,hasnosuchlimitationandmoreoverthereisnovalidcaseforreadinginsuchlimitations.In fact, the word ‘reproduction’ in Cl. (i) could arguably include copying, duplicating ormakingreproductions.Further,thephrase‘courseofinstruction’mustbeconstruedwidelytoincludeallformsandtheendusertestmustbeapplied.Wemustexaminetheunderlyingrationale for such an exception, which is to promote access to knowledge. §52(1)(a)provides for ‘fair dealing for private use.’ The words ‘private use’ ought not to beconstructed in isolation. It was also argued that a provision of a quantitative limit isantitheticaltothefairdealingprovision,especiallyisbooksareunavailable.Readingdown§52(1)(a)candetrimentallyaffectscholasticactivity.Thebroad interpretationof educational exception is necessary to address access relatedissues in India. Textbooks are oftenprohibitively expensive. Consequently,, not only is itunaffordable for students to purchase these books for themselves but even the librarieshavelimitednumberofcopies.Furthermore,theavailabilityofthesebooksisoftenlimitedas they are either foreign publications, which have no equivalent low priced edition inIndia,ortheyareoutofprint.Aproposedalternativewasthegrantofcompulsorylicenses,whichwouldmeanthatonewouldseek licenses frompublishersbypayingaone-time fee tophotocopy thematerial.Whether there is any value in compulsory licenses over fair dealing must, however, beexamined.Firstofall,Compulsorylicenseswillonlyapplytoaverynarrowambitofbooksorsomesectionsofworks.Additionally,theymightputinplacearbitrarylimitsof10%ofthe book or one chapter etc. This in turn can facilitate the third problem of creating apotential formonopolistic practices. Finally, while this might protect the interest of thepublisher, there cannot be any case-to-case determination. With a fair dealing clause,however, there is no maximum limit on reproduction and even cover to coverphotocopying ispermissible.Second,publisherswillnotbeable todictate the termsand


(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(a) afairdealingwitha literary,dramatic,musicalorartisticwork,notbeingacomputer

programme,forthepurposesof-(i)privateorpersonaluse,includingresearch;

44§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:

(i) thereproductionofanywork–(i)byateacherorapupilinthecourseofinstruction;or




conditions of use. Third, students and scholars will be seen as end users, an idea thatcompulsory licenses cannot factor in. Finally, the economic burden on universities andstudentswouldbefarlesserwithfairdealingprovisions.Thisisfurtherreinforcedbythefactthatinothercountriesthatshiftedtoacompulsorylicensingscheme,therewasalmosta100%increaseinprices.Theinternationalexperiencewithcompulsorylicensesprovidesquite a bleakpicturewith the systembeingdiscontinued, asCanadianuniversities couldnotaffordthelicenses.At this juncture, it isunfortunatethattheDelhiHighCourtpassedanorderagainstDelhiUniversity and Rameshwary Photocopy.45The Indian Reprographic Rights Organizationcouldcoerceeducationalinstitutionstoobtainlicensesandfurther,alluniversitieswithoutlicensescouldbeprosecutedforcopyrightinfringement.Inthiscontext,Amlanarguedforaliberalreadingof theprovisions tostrikea fairbalance.Although, the2012amendmentsdid not focus on education, he argued that the fair dealing provisionmust be expandedbothinscopeandtoprotecttheinterestofauthors.FeedbackMr.Madhukar Sinha opined the views on copyright aggression as ‘one-sided’.He arguedthat thesedidnot account for the reality,wheremajorityof students inDelhiUniversityhave financialmeanstopay for licenses.Further, itwassuggestedthat theexceptionsbelooked on a large scheme where there is need to incentivize publishers to meet theincreasingenrollmentsinuniversities.Onthesamenote,Mr.SumeetMaliknotedthat900pagetext issoldatRs.420.Further, if theexceptionswereread inanexpansivemanner,publishingwouldnotbeviable.SheetalChoprahighlightedthelossofroyaltiestoauthorsinpermittingphotocopyingofbooks.ProfessorBasheer inresponseobservedthat largesectionsofthepopulationarenot inapositiontoaffordthesebooksattherateatwhichtheywerebeingsold.Infact,amajorityof academic scholars preferred enhanced readership of theirworks thatwould facilitategreaterdisseminationofknowledgeinsteadofpaltryeconomicbenefitsthroughroyalties.Further,henotedthatmanyofauthorsareunconcernedaboutroyaltiestheyareentitledto.Hefurtheropinedthatthisrestrictiveaccessinthefieldofeducationcallsforarelookattheentireecosystemofeducationalpublishing.UjwalaUppaluri4thyearstudent,WBNUJSThelibrariesexception:WhattheamendedCopyrightActdoes(andshoulddo)forsharingandpreservingknowledgeinthedigitaleraUjwalaexploredtheintermediarylinktothesupplyofknowledgeandpubliclibraries,witha view to evaluate the impact of the latest of amendments in furthering the societalfunction of these institutions. The access to knowledge movement sees knowledge as apublic good, which is non-excludable andwishes tomaximize exchange and creation ofcontent. There is a host of legislation at state level governing public libraries, however,most of them merely institute government run public libraries. There are also lawsgoverning depositories. Depositories receive copies of every book published within itsjurisdiction. There are four depositories in India located in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata andChennai.

45OxfordUniversityPressvDelhiUniversity,DelHC,CS(OS)2439of2012.




§14(c)(i)(A) provides that the reproduction rights include storing of the work in anymediumbyelectronicmeans.46§52(1)(n)providesforstorageinelectronicmeansby‘non-commercial public libraries’ provided such libraries have an analog copy in theirpossession.47Thisisapositivestepintherecognitionofpreservationfunctionoflibraries.§2(fa)providesanegativedefinitionfor‘commercialrental’excludingrentingofworksbynon-profit libraries or educational institutions.48The amendment has also replaced theterm ‘hire’with ‘commercial rental’ inallprovisionsexcept in§51.Thisexclusion in§51seemstobedeliberateinordertoretainthebroaderscopeofinfringementprovision.Thatsaid, the word libraries has been used with different qualifiers and there are differentstandardswith respect todifferent institutions.Thuswithin theCopyrightAct, there areprovisions with respect to non-profit libraries, non-commercial libraries and librarieswithoutanyqualifications.Thislackofclarityispotentiallyproblematicandtheremaynotbeconsensusontheambitofthetermwhenusedinaparticularcontext.Today,therearevariousplansacrosstheglobefordigitisinglibraries.TheUSisslatedtolaunchtheDigitalPublicLibraryofAmericabyApril2013andasimilarprojectisalreadyunderway in Europe. This recognises that preservation is best achieved digitally.Therefore,lawsmustaccountfordigitalpreservationofworks.Thiscanincludeprovisionsforfairuse,scanningandholding,orphanuse,lengthofcopyrightetc.Though §52 refers to digital copies, there is a requirement of physical copies beingpurchasebeforee-copies aremade. In this eraofdigitisation,wemust examinewhetherthis isan inhibitoryconcernandensureclarityontheuseof librariesandwhether itcanincludeentirelyvirtuallibraries.FeedbackMr. Raghavender applauding Ujwala for the addressing the issues concerning publiclibraries comprehensively, expressed disappointment on lack of express provision forinter-library loan, especially in the context of digital copies. It is unfortunate that only 6countriesalloverhavemadethisexceptionsofar.Heclarifiedthatanylibraryfundedbythegovernmentincludingpanchayatscomeswithintheambitofpubliclibraries.ProfessorN.S.Gopalakrishnancommentedthattheschemeoftheamendmentwasonlyaninitialsteptoallowreplicationofhardcopiesinsoftcopyformatandnottolaydownthelegalbackgroundforvirtuallibrariesassignificantlydifferentrulesareapplicabletodigital

46§14Meaningofcopyright(c) incaseofanartisticwork,-

(i)toreproducetheworkinanymaterialformincluding:(A)thestoringofitinanymediumbyelectronicorothermeans.


(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(n) the storingof awork in anymediumbyelectronicmeansbyanoncommercialpubliclibrary,forpreservationifthelibraryalreadypossessesanon-digitalcopyofthework.

48§2(fa) ‘commercial rental’ does not include the rental, lease or lending of a lawfully acquiredcopyofacomputerprogramme,soundrecording,visualrecordingorcinematographfilmfornon-profitpurposesbyanon-profitlibraryornon-profiteducationalinstitution.’;Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, a "non-profit library or nonprofit educationalinstitution”meansa libraryoreducational institutionwhichreceivesgrants fromtheGovernmentorexemptedfrompaymentoftaxundertheIncome-TaxAct,1961.




libraries.Hedid, however, foresee virtual libraries becoming reality fewyears down thelinewhichnecessitatesafreshlookatthelibrariesexception.Hefurtherpointedoutthattheamendmentdoesnotprovide forarentalright forbooks,which is in linewithTRIPSwhichmakesitcompulsoryforthisrighttobeprovidedforcomputerprograms,musicandfilmsbutnotforbooks.Professor Sam Taraporevala Director, Xavier’s Resource Center for the VisuallyChallengedDisabilityAmendment:FarSighted?-ThedisabilityexceptionandthetriumphofcollaborativedemocracyProfessor Taraporevala narrated the ‘unique Indian story’ in inserting the historicexceptionsintheCopyrightActforthebenefitofpeoplewithdisabilities.Thereachoftheprovisions extends not only to people suffering fromvisual impairment, but also for thebenefit of those with orthopedic and other learning disabilities. Although, technologicalsolutions in the formofbraille, computerreaders,OpticalCharacterRecognitionsystems(OCR)andmanyotherdevicesareavailablewhichenablethosewithdisabilities tomakeuse of the work, unfortunately, only a minuscule 0.5% of books are available in suchaccessible formats.These technologywerebeyondsight in1957when theCopyrightActwasenactedandhencenotintunewiththeadvancements.ThelegalstoryTheeffortstointroduceadisabilityexceptionbeganinthe1990sbyProfessorVinodSena.These took concrete shape only when pursued by an informal coalition known as thePublicationAccessCoordinationCommittee(PACC)in2006andtheAlternateLawForumas also Inclsuive Planet and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). Following severalrepresentations from various groups, the Government around 2002-03 proposed theinsertion of an exception to the Copyright Act which permitted reproduction of works‘speciallydesigned’ foruseofpersonswithdisabilities.Thedraftproposal,however,wasnotformatneutralandprovidedfora‘specialformat’,whichrestrictedtheapplicabilityoftheprovision.Furthermore, itwasprotestedthatitwoulddiscriminatebetweendifferentdisabled users for being sensitive to the needs of the visually disabled only. Thus, itpreventedtheend-userapproachtobeadopted.GroundZeroEffortsFollowing the failed attempt at securing a disability friendly exception, ProfessorTaraporevala and others relaunched the campaign through the National Access Alliance(NAA)andtheglobalrighttoreadcampaigntosensitizeauthorsonneedsofthedisabled.Furthermore,anaggressivecampaignbuoyedthroughthesupportoftheDAISYForumofIndia (DFI) and a large number of publishers, amendments eventually incorporated aformat neutral clause, which also provides for sharing of resources between individualsand institutions, with reasonable precautions to protect the interests of publishers. Thelatestamendmentshaverewardedtheeffortsofallandhasaccountedforconcernsraisedwiththepreviousproposal.Wherearewetoday?Thereis,however,stillaneedtoensurethataccessiblebooksareavailableinrealtimeforprintforthedisabledchildrenandeffortsinthisregardarecurrentlyunderwaytoamendthe Deliveries of Book and Periodicals Act suitably for depositing of accessible format.Professor Taraporevala further proposed setting up of a National Library for AccessibleContentarguingthatsuchaneffortisinconsonancewiththeUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(UNCRPD)towhichIndiaisasignatory.Atthegloballeveltoo,




there is talk of a treaty for facilitating access for the print disabled andnegotiations arecurrentlyunderwaybeforetheWIPO.FeedbackMr. Raghavender observed that the inclusion of the provisionwas a proudmoment andcomplimented Dr. Taraporewala for his efforts. Dr. Madhukar Sinha opined that theinclusionof thedisabilityclause in itspresent formintheCopyrightAmendmentAct isaclassicmomentandcongratulatedDr.Taraporevalaforhisefforts.




SESSION4COPYRIGHTENFORCEMENT,ADJUDICATION&GOVERNANCE

ISSUESThis sessionwasdevoted to the issues related to the enforcementof copyright claims, theiradjudication and issues of governance. The amendments were examined in this session, toascertainwhethertheywouldberenderedeffectiveonimplementation,andwhethersuitableinstitutionalmechanismsexistedtoensuretheirenforcement..ThesessionwasmoderatedbyDr.Madhukar Sinha (Professor, Centre forWTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade,NewDelhi).ThepanelistsforthesessionwerePravinAnand(ManagingPartner,AnandandAnand), Sheetal Chopra (Joint Director, FICCI), Ananth Padmanabhan (Advocate, MadrasHighCourt)andAchilleForler(ManagingDirector,DeepEmotions).PravinAnand,ManagingPartner,Anand&AnandCopyrightEnforcement:Willtheamendmentsmakeadifference?Mr. Pravin Anand, before analysing the amendments, discussed the significance ofenforcingalawprotectingtheworkofanartist.Heopinedthatitwouldbenogoodifalawisnotabletoenforcerightsofauthors.HepointedoutthattheusualtimetakenbyalawsuitfordeterminationincourtsthroughoutthecountryispatheticbarringtheDelhiHighCourt.EvenaconservativeestimateofproceedingsattheBombayHighCourtforinstancetakesnolessthan2yearsforobtaininganinjunctionoranoticeofmotionandthesuitcangoupto5to10years.Incontrast,theDelhiHighCourtintroducedtwomajorchangestooverhaulthelaboriousprocedure.TimeRevolutionFirst, the court subcontracted the collection of evidence to a retired judge. As a result,evidenceisnowcollectedatafasterrateandinabusinessfriendlyinformalenvironment.This is convenient even for overseas victims to file affidavits. This process is usuallycompleted in6weeksandwithin2-3monthsthesuit isreadyfor finalargumentsbeforethe judge. These came to be known as the ‘4month orders’. This brought about a timerevolutionintheenforcementofcopyrightclaims.Itispuzzlingwhytherestofthecountrydoesnotfollowsuchprocedure.RemediesRevolutionSecond, theDelhiHighCourt revolutionized remedial reliefs granted to authors.Authorscurrently can obtain reliefs such as Anton Pillar orders and Mareva injunctions. Since2005, the Delhi High Court started a new trend by granting punitive and exemplarydamages. Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are meant to deter a person fromdoingaconductsimilartothatwhichdamageshavebeenawardedfor.Usingtheseordersas deterrent, the court attempts to set example for others to become aware of theconsequences. Civil remedies need to more attractive to ease burden on our criminaljusticesystem.Inthisbackdrop,Mr.AnandarguedforinsertionofstatutorydamagesintheCopyrightActand the latest amendment is thismissed opportunity. Amodel of statutory damages isstatisticallysoundandfollowedworldover.ChangesintheNewAmendmentActMr.AnandwelcomingtheinsertionofcircumventionandRMIprovisionsintheAct,drewattentionto therecentSonyPlaystationcasedecidedbytheDelhiHighCourt fewmonths




before the amendments.49The matter involved ‘jailbreak’ of Sony’s PS3 device. ThisinspirationalorderoftheHighCourttookguidancefromtheamendmentsindecidingthematter.With respect to changes on importation of goods under §53,Mr. Anand disappointinglynoted that the amendments were not in pari material with the Imported GoodsEnforcement Rules, 2007. Under the Rules, the Customs Officers are conferred withadjudicatorpowerstodecideontheirown.Withthechangesthisinstantaneousprocedureisreplacedwitha14dayperiodforobtainingordersfromcompetentcourt.Mr.Anandalsoreferredto§31D,whichprovidesforthestatutorylicenceforbroadcastingof literary and musical works and sound recording., The conditions for compulsorylicensingare,however,absentfromthisprovision.Lastly, Mr. Anand highlighted the legislative flip-flop relating to infringement of three-dimensionalworks.Itisasettledpositionthatunauthorizedcreatingofthree-dimensionalobjects based on two-dimensional artistic works amounts to infringement. Majority ofdisputesweredecided in favourofplaintiffs as the1994amendmentomitted §52(1)(w)which granted a fair dealing exception for converting two-dimensional artistic works tothree-dimensional object. The latest amendments got back the provision but with fewmodifications.50Thecopyrightindrawingandartisticworks,however,isunaffectedbytheprovision and this is in accordancewith decisions of theDelhiHigh Court inMattelandMicrofibers cases. Thus, reproduction of two-dimensional work into three-dimensionalobjectformorethan50times,thecopyrightindesignisdestroyed,notintheartisticwork.Toillustrate,ifanaestheticallyappealingbottlereproducedmorethan50timesbasedonadrawing, only the copyright in thebottledesign is destroyedandnot thedrawing. If thedrawing is used to design another object, thatwould constitute infringement. §52(1)(w)too, limits exemption to only ‘purely functional part’. Therefore, this provisionwould beinapplicable if the object ismerely aesthetic or partly functional and partly aesthetic ornon-functional.FeedbackJaimini Vyas, a student of NUJS, queried whether the Sony Playstation decision wouldcurtain access considering the recent circuit court decisions in the US which heldjailbrekingtobelegalunderthefreerightprovisionoftheDCMA.Mr.Anandstatedthatthecurrent position of law must, however, be decided in terms of the current statute.Sympathetictorightholders,statedthatSonydeservedmonetizationforitsworkandthatitisnotdesirabletoprovideaccesswithoutpayment.Sooraj Abraham, a student from NUALS, agreeing with Mr. Anand on access concernssuggested that the law penalize uploaders and downloader for circumvention and notconduits.Mr.Anandrespondedthatinsoftwareanti-piracycases,initiallyactionwastakenagainst the retailer, but now-a- days the focus is on end userswho are illegallymaking

49SonyCorporationEntertainmentEuropeLimitedvMr.HarmeetSingh,DelHC,CS(OS)No.1725of201250§52Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright

(1) Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,namely:(w)themakingofathree-dimensionalobjectfromatwo-dimensionalartisticwork,suchas

atechnicaldrawing,forthepurposesofindustrialapplicationofanypurelyfunctionalpartofausefuldevice.




multiple copies of software. Copyright owners have now undertaken an End UserCampaignagainst companieswhoasa resultarewilling toa settlement toguardagainstloss of reputation. Furthermore, Mr. Anand noted that watching a pirated movie is notpunishable but use of use of pirated software is an offense. Therefore, end users can bepenalizediftheworkisananti-circumventionmeasureistamperedwith.PraneshPrakashthenaskedMr.Anandforhiscommentsontheuseof‘AntonPiller’orderswhichhasbeenborrowedfromEngland.Mr.PrakashnotedHughLaddie,theoriginatoroftheorderwholaterregrettedandstateditbe‘aFrankenstein’smonsterorderthatwentfarbeyondmyoriginalbrief.’Mr.AnandopinedthatthesituationofEnglandandIndiacouldnotbecompared.InEngland,thisorderwasscrappedsincetherewasanextensivemisuseof it, but the same situation cannot be applied in India aswell. In England, judgeswereupsetwithhowtheywerecarriedout,andinonesuchinstancewomenandchildrenwerecompletelyrestrainedfor17hours.ThesituationinIndia,however,isporousandtherearemanywaysinformationleaksout.Safeguardshavebeenintroducedinourorderstoensurethatabalanceismaintained.Itisprobablytheonlywaytocatchinfringers.SheetalChopraJointDirector,FICCICopyrightTheftthroughmultiplexes:CopyrightAmendmentsneedsaRevisitMs. Chopra, representing the voiceon the entertaining industry, stated that cam-cordingfrom theatres is themajor root cause of piracy. Piracy causes a loss to the governmentexchequerandproductioncompanies.Thecurrentamendmentsfailtocometotherescueof IP owners and in fact there is hugepossibility of interpretationof someprovisions insuchawaythatitratherwouldallowpiracytobepracticedlegallybycamcordingthroughmultiplexes. The contribution of entertainment industry to the GDP is around Rs. 100billioncroresandhence,piracyneedsimmediateattention.Ms. Chopra noted that pirates are technologically sophisticated and hi-tech gadgets arecarried into theatres in beverages and shirt pockets. In a recent incident, a 19-year oldfrominAndhraPradeshwascaughtrecordinginatheatreandconsequentlyconfessedtoillegalrecordingof370moviesandsellsthesamefurtherattheconsiderationofmoney.Incertain sting operations carried out in South side it revealed that in certain cases evenCinemaownerswerethemselvesinvolvedinabettingthecauseofpiracy.Theillegalcopiesarelatersoldtoillegalwebsites.Ms.Sheetalreferredtoasurveybasedonforensicmatchesrevealed that 53% of piracy has roots in India which can be easily traced throughwatermarkingembeddedindigitalcopiesoffilms.§52(1)(a),contrarytointerestsoftheindustry,entitleonetocopyaworkforpersonalorprivateuse.InoneoftheinteractivedebatethatFICCIorganizedwitnessedthepresenceoffilm fraternity and themultiplex associationof India.An important revelationwasmadeduringtheinteractionthataforesaidprovisionencouragespiracy.Today,ifsomeonegoestocinemahallandcamcordscopyofthefilmandifheisaskedbycinemaoperatorstostopdoingit,hecanverymuchtakepleaunder§52(1)(a)andsaythatheisrecordingitforhispersonal or private use and hence it is completely legal. Once is out from cinema hall itwould take him no time to send it to release groups and upload it on web for publicviewing.InsuchcaseitwouldbecompletelydifficultfortheIPownertocatchholdofthisguyatall.Eventhepoliceenforcementagenciesarecluelessontheillegalityofuseofcam-cording devices. During the interaction at FICCI, Andhra Pradesh film Chamber ofcommerce representative mentioned that in 100% cases, Police says no to take anycognizanceagainstcamcording.Sinceitisverydifficulttotrackpeoplelowerdowninthepiracypyramid,thereforemultiplexownerscanbeheldliableastheyarestakeholdersintheprocessaswell.




Ms.Sheetal thencitedtheexampleofUSAwhereahugeamountof losswassaidtohavebeen reported because of cam-cording. Ms. Chopra demanded for anti-camcordinglegislation similar to Philippines. Alternatively, appropriate changesmay bemade in theCinematographicBilltoeffectivelyaddressthisissue.Inthealternative,aprovisionintheCinematograph Bill would suffice to tackle the menace. Ms. Sheetal, concluding herpresentation, expressed dissatisfaction over TPMs as they fail to penalize those whomanufacturedeviceswiththeprimaryobjectiveofcircumvention.ShealsohighlightedtheneedforchangeinGuidelinesforInternetserviceprovidersunderITActwhohavetoactwithin36hoursoncethecomplaintismadetothemtotakedownthe contentious pirated content. Industry urges that this time period should besubstantiallyloweredsoastoeffectivelyaddresstheissueofpiracy.She also highlighted that besides adequate changes in that needs to be brought atlegislativelevel,itisequallyimportanttotakemeasuresinchangingthemindsetofyoungpopulation who find it appropriate to download the entertainment content free of cost.Besides, continuous training of enforcement officials and introducing IP related coursecurriculuminSchoolsandcollegescangolongwayinaddressingtheperilofpiracy.She also highlighted that since India stands today 3rd in the world in terms of internetconnectivityandduetotechnologicaladvancementthatistakingplaceitisimportantthatthe issue of piracy is tackled from various angles and hence need for adoption ofmultiprongedapproachtoovercomethisissue.FeedbackOnbeing confrontedbyaquestionon themoralityof the industry inplagiarizing scriptsversus themorality of consumer in indulging in piracy fromAnjumRajabali,Ms. Chopraagreedandstatedthatiftheindustryrequestsconsumersoranindividualnottopirate,theindustryalsoshouldrefrainfrom‘stealing.’Mr. Pranesh Prakash highlighted the dearth of empirical studies on the efficacy of anti-piracy measures. He opined that most of the measures were ineffective and affordablepricing is the most effective solution. Mr. Madhukar Sinha, supplemented this with anearlier survey that he conducted. Unfortunately, producers did not respond to hisquestionnaire. Nonetheless, the access related concerns of consumers when tested withmindset of consumers in disobeying rules reveals mere casual behavior rather thandisobedience.Moreover,barriertoaccessofworkismainlyfortworeasons:(a)thepriceof entertainment is unaffordable to many and (b) the barriers created by location,availabilityandphysicalaccessisintimidatingtothoseinlowereconomicstrata.Thefactthatnoproduction companieshave shutdownas result ofpiracy shows that it doesnotaffectthemsubstantially.AnanthPadmanabhan,Lawyer,MadrasHighCourtTheCopyrightAmendmentandAdjudicationbytheBoard:AFailedOpportunityMr.Padmanabhan,inhispresentation,focusedontheconstitutionoftheCopyrightBoard,its functions and problems therein. The Copyright Board and the Intellectual PropertyAppellateBoardarethetwoprimarybodiesthatgoverntheIPadjudicationinthecountry.In a recent petition, these organs have been challenged on the grounds of constitutional




infirmity and non-compliance with the May 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of inUnionofIndiav.R.Gandhi.51Inthiscase,SupremeCourtrecognisedtherightofapersontogethisrightadjudicatedbyaforum,whichexercisesjudicialpowerinanimpartialmanner.The main feature of the Board is the power to grant Compulsory Licenses. One of thegroundsofthepetitionisthatthroughtheuseoftheircompulsorylicensingpowers,manyunreasonableconditionshavebeenimposedbytheseorganswhichhaverestrictedaccesstomanyworks. Furthermore, theBoard has failed to balance the competing interests oftwoindustries.§31requiresthatacomplaintbemadeshowingthatonehastriedtheirbestto access anyparticularwork.This access shouldeitherhavebeendeniedorgrantedonveryunreasonableterms.OnlythencananappealbemadetotheBoard.Prior to1985, the lawrelatingtohowjudicialbodiesshouldbeconstitutedwasnotveryclearly laid down.With the 42ndAmendment, however, the schemeof tribunalswas laiddown. As per the judgment in SampathKumar52(1986), the Supreme Court could strikedown tribunals (this could only be done through the courts). Due to practical concerns,ratherthanonanylegalmerits,theconstitutionalityofthesetribunalswasupheldbythecourt.Itwas,however,heldthatwhentheysubstituteHighCourts,thesetribunalsmustbeconstitutedinaneffectiveandconstitutionalmanner.Even after all these years, however, no specialised justice has been provided by thesetribunalsand theproblemofpendencystillpersists. Inspiteof this, theCourtrefused tostrikedown§§323Aand323B thusholding that tribunals,discharging the functionsof acourt,cannotworkmerelywithatechnicalmember.Aproposalwasalsomadetovesttheentire company law jurisdiction of the courts to the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT).TheSupremeCourt,however,affirmedconstitutionalprinciplesinitsdecisioninUnionofIndiav.RGandhi,holdingthatNCLTanditsappellatebodydidnotsatisfytherequirementsfor judicial independence. It laid down the conditions that must be satisfied whileconstitutingsuchtribunals.Asperthedecision,technicalmembersoftheBoardmustnotbebelowthelevelofsecretariesandsub-secretaries.Theymustbeheadedbyanex-judge.Moreover, the board cannot be a mix of just legal personnel such as legal officers andjudges. A minimum tenure must be assured to ensure independence of these tribunals.Theremustalsobeachanceofre-appointment.Morerecently,themannerofadjudicationbytheCopyrightBoardcametobequestioned.In 2010, theBoardpassed anenmasse order against allmusic providers in the country.Mostof them,however,werenotheardatalland thusviolating theprinciplesofnaturaljustice. In light of these developments, the constitutional validity of these tribunals waschallengedbefore thecourts.Theamendmentwasamissedopportunity toprovide foraCopyright Board that was competent to address issues that would be placed in itsjurisdiction by the amendment itself. It failed to address compliancewith the directivesgiven by the court in R Gandhi decision. Moreover, the amendment adds ‘any personqualifiedtobeaHighCourtjudge’tobeeligibletoheadtheCopyrightBoard.Thespeakerwas of the opinion that such a person would not have the requisite experience andexpertisetofunctionastheChairperson.

51UnionofIndiav.R.Gandhi,President,MadrasBarAssociation,2010(5)SC514.52S.P.SampathKumarv.UnionOfIndia,AIR1987SC386.




TheCopyrightActalsodoesnottalkaboutthequalificationandappointmentoftherestofthe members of the Board. Guidance could be sought from the Supreme Court, whichdistinguishedbetweenjudicialandtechnicalmembersoftheseBoards.ThelattercouldbecomprisedoftheformerRegistrarofCopyrights,CharteredAccountantsetc.The implications of §31Dalsoneed to be fully examined andunderstood and competinginterests must be kept in mind while determining rights. Ananth emphasized on theimportanceofintroducingstabilityinthefunctioningoftheCopyrightBoard.HerecountedanincidentwherearetiredHighCourt judgeontheCopyrightBoardfailedtoturnuponthedayofascheduledhearingduetoothercommitments.FeedbackMr.G.RRaghevenderaopinedthatifanadvocatewhohadbeenpracticisingforfiveyearswas deemed fit to be a high court judge, thenwhy cannot a lawyer be appointed as theChairperson of the Copyright Board. Mr. Padhmanabhan, while accepting this analogy,qualifieditwiththeobservationthatsincethepostofChairpersonwasanalogoustothatoftheChiefJusticeofaHighCourt.ThuswhilealawyercouldundoubtedlyqualifyasajudgeofacourtormemberoftheBoard,hewouldnotbequalifiedenoughtobeappointedChair.Dr.Madhukar Sinha supplementingMr. Padmanabhan’s lineof argument, added that theprocessofappointmentofmembersof theseBoardswasnot transparentand thatwasamajorissuethatmustbeaddressed.AchilleForler,ManagingDirector,DeepEmotionsTheAmendmentsandthecollectiveadministrationofmusicalandliteraryworksWhiletheconceptofpropertydatesbackseveralcenturies,authorsstartedassertingtheirrights only in the eighteenth century. Mr. Forler narrated an incident when Voltaire’smistressMarquiseduChateletsaidtohim‘Irecognizeyouareaphilosophernotbecauseyouarefamousbutyouarerich.’Thismarksabeginningofriseofindividualism.Cultureisnowshapedbytheexpressionof individual identity. Henotedthattherightsandroleofauthorsinsocietygoesbeyondeconomics.Likethelifeofhumans,copyright is limitedintimeandallworkswill become commonpropertyofpublic.Therefore, onemust alwaysremember that the subject matter of intellectual property is an individual’s creation.Moreover, its protection may be sought as a human right, recognized by internationalconventions.Mr.Forlerstatedthattheamendmentswerereceivedwithmuchenthusiasmalloverandexpressed confidence that the changes would transform the industry. In particular, heanalysed the provision which bars assignment of royalties and mandatory collection ofroyalties throughsocieties.Untilnow, the licensingprocesswas fairlystraightforwardasroyaltieswere completelywith themusic labels. Post the amendments, record for everyuseofsong(bothdigitalandphysical)willnecessarilyhavetobemaintainedinordertobecompliant with the law and pay royalties for lyricists and composers. The sharing ofroyaltiesinthisframeworkiscomplicatedandnewtotheindustry.Forinstance,thesong‘Don’t phunkwithmy heart’ by Blacked Eyed Peas has 23 owners. To ease the revenuedistribution, the amendment mandates licensing of underlying literary works andcompositionsonlythroughcollectingsociety.This isadvantageousforusers,astheyhavetosimplyapproachthesociety,inthiscontext-theIPRS,tousemusic.Thereasonforthisinsertionwasduetotheexplosionofdigitalconsumption.OnlinemusicstreamingserviceSpotify in 2011 reported 3 billion lines. Irrespective of the length of the song streamed,




publishersareentitledtoearnrevenuesandthiscouldrangefrom11to23paise.Insuchsituations, only collecting societies are in a position to administer royalties effectivelygiventhecomplexityandvolumeofdata.Mr. Forler stated that due to the insertion of non-assignment of royalty provision,accountingismandatory.Thisaccountingprocessis,however,verycomplex.Fortunately,advancements in technology now enable societies to record any consumption therebyentitling small composers to obtain royalties who previously never received any. Thesetechnologicalapplianceswillberolledoutsoonbycopyrightsocietiesandthiswouldmakemonetizationpossibleindigitalmusic.FeedbackProf.Basheerobservedthatthereisanincreasing‘atomization’ofcontentandasaresultthereisincreaseintransactioncost.HesoughtMr.Forler’spolicysuggestionsforresolvingthis transaction cost.Mr. Forler responded that in such a situation, the role of copyrightsocieties becomes very important and they must ensure that all literary works andcompositionsarelicensedthroughIPRS.TheIPRSinitspresentstate,however,needstobereformed.Mr.ForleraddedthatIndiashouldplayabiggerroleinthefuture.AnirbanMazumdar,AssistantProfessor,NUJS,KolkataMr.Mazumdar focuses on the administrative, adjudicatory and logistical complexities inthelatestamendments.Belowarefewsuchcomplexities:The‘non-profitpurpose’inthedefinitionof‘commercialrental’isambiguous.Willitbethecomposition of audience or collection of fees or revenues earned by the entity that isrelevantforqualifyingnon-profitpurposeisunclear.Thedefinitionof ‘performer’ in theproviso to the §2(qq) is vague.53Themeaningof thephrase ‘normal course of practice of the industry’ within the meaning of the abovementioned clause is also unclear. Mr. Mazumdar questioned how a normal industrypracticecouldtobedetermined?§19(3)54oftheActprovidesfortheroyaltytobepayabletotheauthororhislegalheirs.TheAmendmentBillsubstitutedthewords‘royaltypayable,if any’with thewords ‘royalty and any other consideration payable.’ In this regard,Mr.Mazumdaraddedthatthephraseleavesdoubtonhowtheroyaltyshouldbedivided.§5755of the Copyright Act provides right to an author, independent of rights under §55,whereby an author can restrain or claim damages if act, such as distortion, before the

53§2(qq)Providedthatinacinematographfilmapersonwhoseperformanceiscasualorincidentalinnatureand, inthenormalcourseofthepracticeofthe industry, isnotacknowledgedanywhereincluding in the credits of the film shall not be treated as a performer except for the purpose ofclause(b)ofsection38B;54§19Modeofassignment

(3)Theassignmentofcopyrightinanyworkshallalsospecifytheamountof[royaltypayable,ifany and any other consideration payable], to the author or his legal heirs during thecurrency of the assignment and the assignment shall be subject to revision, extension orterminationontermsmutuallyagreeduponbytheparties.

55§57Author’sspecialrights

(1) Independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly orpartiallyofthesaidcopyright,theauthorofaworkshallhavetheright-




expirationofcopyrighttermwouldbeprejudicialtothehonourandrespectoftheauthor.Through the amendment, thewords ‘which is done before the expiration of the term ofcopyright’ are sought to be omitted. Mr. Mazumdar stated that it was unclear whethertherewasanyneedforomission.§38oftheCopyrightActprovidesthataperformer,whoengagesinanyperformance,canclaim special rights for a period of 50 years. Whether such a right of a performer beclaimedbyalegalrepresentativeornot,isstilladoubtfulquestionopinedMr.Mazumdar.

Acknowledgements

Thereporthasbeenpreparedby

AbhinavShrivastavaAkshaySharmaAprajitaLathAshaRachelJoyAshnaAsheshNidhiRao

NiveditaSaksenaShyamGopal

Editedby

AmbaKak ArunMal SaiVinod

WewishtothanktheMinistryofHumanResourceDevelopmentforitscontinuedsupportfortheactivitiesoftheIPChairinhostingconferences.WealsowishtothankK&SPartnersforhelpinguswithadditionalsponsorshiptoenableacomprehensivetwodayconference.

(a) toclaimauthorshipofthework;and(b) to restrain or claimdamages in respect of any distortion,mutilation,modification or

otheractinrelationtothesaidwork[whichisdonebeforetheexpirationofthetermofcopyright]ifsuchdistortion,mutilation,modificationorotheractwouldbeprejudicialtohishonourorreputation

Documents

CONFERENCE REPORT - NUJS Law Review