Open Access Research Article
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE INDIAN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN THE INDUSTRY AGE
Published Paper
Article Details
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE
INDIAN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN THE INDUSTRY AGE
AUTHORED BY
- NISHA KUMAWAT
1.
CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION
Cyberspace stands as one of man's most profound advancements to date,
indicating a rapid expansion in communication and data dissemination. This digital realm
has revolutionized the way
information is transferred, enhancing both its mode and speed across the globe. With its boundless
accessibility, content can now be evaluated, viewed, printed, and downloaded
from virtually anywhere. Yet, the absence of centralized control renders
cyberspace a realm often characterized by its lawlessness, especially within
the context of digital technologies.
The Indian Entertainment Industry, with a history spanning over a
century, traditionally gauged success through metrics like ticket sales
and album purchases. However, the advent of piracy has posed
significant challenges. Today, success metrics have evolved, with social media
platforms such as YouTube
and Facebook serving
as barometers of popularity. Reviews
and reactions shared on these platforms often dictate
the fate of movies and music releases.
Reflecting on the Internet's trajectory, its rapid evolution has
surpassed early predictions. In just two decades, from the 1990s to the
present, global Internet users burgeoned from a mere million to an estimated 70
million by 1997. The proliferation of smartphones has further democratized
Internet access, with Asia and Latin America projected to witness the fastest
growth in user numbers.[1]
In today's landscape, the Internet has shifted from being a luxury to a
necessity, particularly underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. Its ubiquitous
presence has enabled seamless connectivity and facilitated a myriad of tasks
across various domains. From education to healthcare, from business meetings to
entertainment, the Internet has become the backbone of modern society.
The introduction of 4G network speeds by Reliance Jio in 2016
revolutionized Internet accessibility in India, garnering widespread acceptance
due to its speed and affordability.
However, this advancement exacerbated challenges for intellectual
property (IP) owners, particularly copyright-holders. The proliferation of high-speed Internet
facilitated faster and more
accessible piracy, impacting the rights and revenues of content creators.
Accompanying the growth
of the internet and the emergence of knowledge-based industries is the advent of a new form of asset: intellectual property (IP). Intellectual property encompasses
creations of the human mind, spanning literary
works, fine arts, digital media, architectural
designs, and more. This unique
form of property entails a bundle of rights that can be bought, sold, or leased, providing protection for
copyrights, patents, trademarks, and industrial designs.[2]
Unlike tangible assets, intellectual property
possesses uncertain values and utilities, compounded by its widespread
accessibility, rendering it susceptible to theft. Its production heavily relies
on intellect, making it inherently challenging to safeguard against
infringement. Unfortunately,
advancements in science and technology, while elevating digital learning tools
and methods of information exchange, have also fueled piracy.
The proliferation of cheap electronics and internet access has led to dwindling profits
for creators across various industries, notably impacting sectors like the cinema industry.
2.
CHAPTER 2- CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Copyright Law in India
Copyright, a form of Intellectual Property, confers an exclusive
monopoly, as highlighted in the preamble of the Indian Copyright Act, which
aims to consolidate and amend laws pertaining to copyright. Also known as
author's rights, copyright grants creators’ exclusive control over their
literary or artistic works, spanning a wide range from books, music, and films
to computer programs and technical drawings. “Section 14 of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957 defines ‘copyright’ as the exclusive right
to perform or authorize certain
acts concerning literary, dramatic, artistic, musical works, cinematograph films, and
sound recordings.”[3]
In the context of the entertainment industry, copyright infringements are commonly referred
to as 'piracy'. However,
the economic ramifications of such piracy
on films and music remain
subject to debate. The advent of digital mediums for content consumption has fueled industry growth while also facilitating digital
piracy. For instance, online streaming has emerged as a primary channel for music consumption, contributing significantly to industry
revenues. As of December 2018, the
audio OTT market was valued
at USD 250 million, with weekly music consumption averaging
21.5 hours, surpassing the global average of 17.8 hours.
2.2.
Copyright Protection to Cinematographic Works and its Violations
In the realm of the Entertainment Industry, copyright protection extends
to cinematograph films and musical works. In the case of cinematograph films,
copyright vests with the producer, while for musical works, it encompasses both
the lyrics and music of the composition.
As per “Section 2 (p) of the Indian Copyright
Act, 1957, "musical work" means a work consisting of music and includes
any graphical notation
of such work but does not include
any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or
performed with the music[4].”
Thus, both the melody and lyrics of a song qualify for copyright protection as separate literary
and musical works, respectively.
In the legal precedent of Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern
Indian Motion Picture Association[5],
the Supreme Court defined "musical work" as a combination of melody
and harmony, with emphasis on graphical representation. Similarly, Sawkins v.
Hyperion Records [6]highlighted that a musical
work comprises melody
and harmonies, considering notes as essential elements but not the sole determinants of the audible
output. Originality, determined by the degree of skill, labor, and
innovativeness, is crucial for copyright protection.
Regarding ‘cinematograph films’, “Section 2 (f) of the Indian Copyright
Act, 1957 it means any work of visual
recording and includes
a sound recording accompanying such visual recording and “cinematograph” shall
be construed as including any work produced by any process
analogous to cinematography including video films[7]”.
Legal cases like Restaurant Lee v. State of Madhya Pradesh [8]and
Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration [9]affirmed
that the exhibition of movies through playback devices constitutes
cinematography.
The definition of "cinematograph film" encompasses associated
soundtracks, as upheld in P. Thulasidas v. K. Vasanthakumari.[10]
Soundtracks associated with films are protected under cinematograph film copyrights, not as separate
sound recordings. However,
independent copyright may exist
for sound recordings derived from films, such as recording songs from film soundtracks.
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the economic rights
granted to copyright
owners encompass the right to
broadcast and re-broadcast works[11],
which involves communicating the work to the public through wireless or wired
mediums in the form of signs, sounds, or images. The right of communication to
the public includes making works available for public enjoyment through display
or diffusion, excluding distribution of physical copies without authorization.
Additionally, the Doctrine
of First Sale allows re-selling legitimate copies of a work after the first
sale, but prohibits selling illegally reproduced copies without permission.
Section 51 of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957 categorizes infringement into primary and secondary
acts. Primary infringement involves performing exclusive rights of the
copyright owner without permission, while secondary infringement includes selling,
hiring, or distributing infringing copies
without authorization. [12]Acts of piracy encompass
both primary and secondary infringement, with offline piracy constituting primary infringement due to
unauthorized distribution for commercial gain, and online digital piracy
constituting secondary infringement through unauthorized exhibition on internet
platforms and search engines for downloading, streaming, and sharing.
Section 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 [13]provides
for copy control protection rather than access control protection. Broadcasting
a film on cable television to paid subscribers without authorization constitutes infringement of the copyright holder's
exclusive right. However,
there is currently no specific provision under copyright law addressing online
digital piracy, although the recent amendment to the Cinematograph Act, 1952 [14]criminalizes
cam-cording in theaters. Similarly, the Information Technology Act, 2000 [15]does
not address online piracy as a mode of infringement, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules 2021 lack specific provisions for combating online piracy of
copyrighted content. Consequently, the existing legal framework lacks provisions
to address or mitigate the adverse effects of online piracy.
2.3.
Issues & Challenges
The Copyright Act of 1957 confronts various issues and challenges within
the Entertainment Industry, particularly concerning film and music piracy. While
commercial gain remains
a primary motive for copyright
infringement, several other factors contribute to the proliferation of
unauthorized copies:
i.
Accessibility: Free availability of content incentivizes piracy.
ii.
Convenience: Piracy offers
a quick and convenient alternative.
iii.
Low Risk: Perceived low risk of detection and punishment encourages unlawful dissemination.
iv.
Illusion of Free Content: Misconception that online
content is inherently free contributes to piracy.
v.
Affordability: High
costs of original products drive consumers towards
pirated alternatives.
vi.
Internet Access: Easy and affordable
access to the internet, especially through
smartphones, fuels online piracy.
Online piracy, in particular, has surged with the widespread adoption of
high-speed internet technologies like 2G/3G/4G/5G. Various sources contribute
to online piracy, including P2P networks, cyber lockers, streaming sites,
torrent sites, and social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram.
Notably, film and music piracy are global challenges affecting both developing
and developed countries. A 2019 report revealed that online piracy of
U.S.-produced movies and TV shows amounted to billions of views annually,
resulting in substantial economic losses. Digital video piracy not only impacts
the entertainment industry
but also leads to significant revenue losses, job cuts, and reduced GDP.
3.
CHAPTER 3 – ONLINE DIGITAL PIRACY
IN INDIAN FILM INDUSTRY
The traditional concept of piracy, once confined to seafaring plunder,
has transformed into the illicit copying and unauthorized downloading of
digital content online. This encompasses a vast array of media, from movies and
music to video games and ebooks. In the realm of film piracy, within convergent
consumption, it entails the unauthorized acquisition, possession, reception,
interference, and conversion of copyrighted materials, whether or not financial gain accrues to the
creator.
The IP Crime Group outlines digital piracy as the unlawful duplication of
various content types for profit, including music, films, literary works,
broadcasts, computer games, and software. It encompasses reproducing, utilizing, or distributing information products in digital
formats without the consent of their legal owners.[16]
Such practices undermine the traditional aim of copyright regimes, which seek
to safeguard the interests of content creators.
Media piracy spans various internet-related activities, including
peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, streaming media, aggregator websites, and
internet service providers (ISPs), facilitating unauthorized access to
copyrighted content. Worldwide distribution of copyrighted films and movies
online involves content accessible via subscription-based over-the-top (OTT)
platforms, accessed through cyberlockers, ripped from cinemas or online
services, and streamed or rebroadcasted from local TV stations or live TV.[17]
Despite efforts to combat piracy, the contemporary movie distribution
model has failed to effectively curb illegal activities, such as unauthorized
video recordings in theaters and unauthorized
downloads from legitimate streaming applications. Online
piracy manifests through various avenues, including P2P
file sharing, user-uploaded content aggregation websites, and social media
sharing via embedded links.
In essence, digital piracy poses a formidable challenge to copyright
enforcement efforts, necessitating ongoing adaptation and innovation in
countermeasures. While legal frameworks exist to address these issues, the
dynamic nature of digital piracy demands continuous vigilance and proactive
strategies from stakeholders across industries to protect intellectual property
rights and combat illicit activities in the digital domain.
P2P file-sharing networks, popularized by platforms like Napster,
Gnutella, FastTrack, and BitTorrent, facilitate data transfer at the expense of
security, enabling the sharing of pirated files regardless of size or type. BitTorrent remains a widespread platform for film file sharing
globally. In India, the Telegram application has emerged as a significant facilitator of P2P sharing via private
chats, contributing to India's prominence in P2P file sharing traffic.
Despite the prevalence of piracy, service providers typically evade
liability due to their lack of control over file transmission. This legal
loophole exempts them from accountability, allowing piracy to proliferate without
consequence, resulting in revenue
loss and diminished tax collection for
official channels such as theaters and streaming platforms.
3.1.
Impact of Online Digital
Piracy on Industry
Stakeholders
Online digital piracy significantly impacts industry stakeholders,
leading to both financial losses and adverse effects on employment. The Indian
film industry suffers an estimated annual loss of INR 22,000 crores and
approximately 60,000 jobs due to piracy. While piracy may boost film popularity
among audiences with limited access to authorized content, its negative
ramifications outweigh any perceived benefits.
Several notable films, such as "Udta Punjab," "Great Grand Masti," "Kabil," "Manjhi," and "Paa,"
have fallen victim to piracy, resulting in
substantial revenue losses. The leak of "Bahubali" alone led to INR 1,064 crores in
financial losses for the Telugu film industry. Industry stakeholders, including actors, producers, and directors, have
voiced concerns over piracy's detrimental impact on revenue and employment
opportunities.[18]
Piracy not only affects revenue but also demotivates industry
stakeholders, discouraging future creative endeavors. Charles George, a
regional head of Newstream Operations, highlighted the adverse effects of
piracy on independent and first-time producers, potentially reducing the
frequency of film productions and affecting livelihoods.
Industry combats piracy with innovative strategies. For instance,
"URI – The Surgical Strike" creators
uploaded a deceptive video on YouTube
to deter piracy.
Yash Raj Films
urged consumers to report
piracy and swiftly removed illicit links. These proactive measures reinforce
the fight against piracy in the entertainment sector.
Despite efforts to combat piracy, the courts' interventions, such as John
Doe orders and dynamic injunctions, have proven ineffective. However, certain
production houses, like Fox Star Studios, have
successfully curtailed piracy
through vigilant measures, including accompanying analog
reels worldwide and shutting down illegal DVD-making facilities.
3.2.
Legislative measures for Copyright
Infringement
The Indian courts have devised various remedies to address rampant
copyright infringements, including civil, criminal, and administrative
measures.
THE COPYRIGHT ACT,1957
Under Chapter XII of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, civil remedies are
available to copyright owners. Section 55 outlines several
civil remedies, including injunctions to
restrain infringement, claims for
damages, accounts of profit, and damages for conversion.
Criminal remedies, detailed in Chapter XIII (Sections 63-70) of the Act,
include imprisonment, fines, and seizure of infringing copies.
“Section 63: Offence
of infringement of copyright or other rights
conferred by this Act
- Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of -
a)
the copyright in a work, or
b)
any other
right conferred by this Act 1 [except the right conferred by section 53A],
[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall
not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees]:
Provided that 1 [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the
course of trade or business] the court
may, for adequate
and special reasons
to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less
than fifty thousand rupees.][19]
Explanation. - Construction of a building
or other structure
which infringes or which, if completed,
would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under
this section.”
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 has reformed the Copyright
regulations in India by amending piracy laws in India.
Section 65A safeguards Technological Protection Measures
(TPM) utilized by copyright owners against any breach. TPM is used by
copyright owners to safeguard their right in the copyrighted work. If somebody
evades TPM to infringe the owner’s IPR, then, at that point, the infringer can be
punished with imprisonment unto 2 years along with fine.
Both civil and criminal remedies can be pursued simultaneously by the
copyright holder, but establishing mens rea or knowledge of the infringement is
essential for criminal prosecution.
Under Section 70, only Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates
of First Class can try offenses under the Copyright Act. Complaints can be
filed by any individual, and the Magistrate must take cognizance upon receiving
the complaint. Administrative remedies involve authorities such as the Registrar
of Copyright, the Copyright Board,
and Copyright Societies, empowered for
copyright enforcement. Copyright owners can seek their intervention in cases of
infringement.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023, passed by Parliament, marks the
first significant update to the Cinematograph Act since 1984. Aimed at
combatting piracy, it addresses a menace causing estimated losses of Rs 20,000
Crores to the film industry. This landmark legislation reflects efforts to
modernize legal frameworks and safeguard intellectual property rights in the
digital age.[20]
Effective implementation of these amendments is crucial to achieving
their objectives and combating piracy effectively in the digital era.
The Amendment Act represents a pivotal step towards upholding the fundamental legal principle of safeguarding 'original work' by introducing Sections
6AA and 6AB into the existing legislation, aimed at curtailing
unauthorized recording.
According to Section 6AA, individuals are prohibited from using any
audio-visual recording device in
licensed film exhibition venues with the intent
to create or transmit infringing copies of
films. An audio-visual recording device encompasses both digital and analogue
photographic or video cameras, as well as any other technology capable of
recording or transmitting copyrighted cinematographic material, regardless of
its primary purpose.
Furthermore, Section 6AB prohibits the use or facilitation of infringing copies
of films for public
exhibition with profit motives, either in unlicensed venues or in a manner
constituting copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, or other
relevant laws.
The Amendment Act also delineates penalties for violations of Sections 6AA and 6AB. Offenders
may face imprisonment for a minimum of three months, extendable up to three
years, along with fines ranging from a minimum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three
lakh) to 5% (five percent) of the audited gross production cost. Additionally, the Amendment Act extends comprehensive relief to aggrieved parties
in piracy cases,
empowering them to take appropriate legal actions under statutes
such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, or the Copyright Act, 1957.
4.
CHAPTER 4- JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA
In addition to legislative measures, Indian courts have employed various
remedies to safeguard the rights of copyright holders, particularly in the face of
technological advancements facilitating internet piracy.
One such remedy
is the issuance of John Doe Orders,
also known as 'Ashok Kumar orders', utilized when the identity of infringers
is unknown or untraceable. These orders were first introduced by the Delhi High
Court in the case of Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. v. Rajan Mandal & Ors.[21]
These orders allow copyright holders to act against unknown perpetrators.
However, they can be time- consuming and ineffective as they only address
unidentified parties, potentially burdening copyright holders financially
through repeated applications.
The 'notice-and-take-down' procedure, a remedy in copyright
infringement cases, involves courts ordering online intermediaries to block
access to infringing websites. The liability of intermediaries in India is a
contentious issue. Courts stipulate that intermediaries cannot be held
accountable unless furnished with accurate information and a valid order from
the competent authority, as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,
2000. This recognition underscores the nuanced approach to intermediary
liability in Indian copyright law.
In 2021, the Indian Parliament introduced the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These rules empower authorized officers to examine digital media content during
emergencies. The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB),
may issue interim
directions for blocking
content, pending approval
from the Inter-Departmental Committee. If the Committee
does not approve, the content must be unblocked.
A recent addition to the arsenal of remedies is 'dynamic injunctions'. In
UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337x.to[22],
the Delhi High Court introduced dynamic injunctions, allowing copyright holders to extend
injunctions to other websites sharing
infringing content. This concept originated in the Singapore
Supreme Court, targeting 'Flagrantly Infringing Online Locations' (FIOLs)
primarily sharing infringing content.
'Live blocking' is a lesser-explored strategy to combat copyright
infringement, specifically targeting live event streaming servers like those
for cricket, football, Olympics, and F1 racing. Unlike traditional website
blocking orders, live blocking orders mandate Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
to restrict access.
Although prevalent in regions like the U.K., India's adoption
of live blocking remains scarce.
In Balaji Motion Pictures v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd[23], the film named 'Udta Punjab' was released online
before its release in theaters. The duplicate which was made to show the film
to CBFC for certification was leaked on the Internet. The producers moved to
the court to request that BSNL bring down completely concerned links from the
web. The Bombay High Court conceded the request to do as such.
Rights holders often seek these john doe orders to halt access to
websites facilitating illegal downloads of movies or music. While effective in
combating piracy, such orders have faced criticism for their broad reach,
potentially leading to the unintended blocking of legitimate websites serving
non-infringing purposes. In the case of Star India v. Sujit Jha and Ors[24], the Delhi
High Court issued a preemptive order to block 73 websites entirely, citing the
lack of alternative remedies for the
plaintiff. On appeal, the
Divisional Bench of the
Delhi High Court mitigated the order's impact by restricting the blocking
to specific URL links rather than entire websites. However, this adjustment
came after the relevant sports series had concluded, underscoring the
challenges in timely recourse.
At interim stages,
courts typically focus on establishing a prima facie case, deferring
more detailed judicial tests
to the main hearing. Given the unknown identities of defendants, proceedings
often occur ex-parte, potentially leading to the unintended blocking of
legitimate websites, adversely affecting their operations. This issue surfaced prominently in the case of Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jyoti
Cable Network & Ors.[25],
concerning the film 'Singham'. The court's order resulted in the blocking of
various websites, including those merely reviewing movies, underscoring the heightened burden
of proof on plaintiffs seeking
John Doe Orders
against unidentified parties.
5.
CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
The Indian film industry has long been a cornerstone in shaping Copyright laws within the country.
Movies are not just a source of entertainment but also a form of contemporary
art, contributing significantly to the economy. However, the growing concern of
piracy in India poses a threat to both annual revenue and employment opportunities within the industry. Moreover, it undermines the morale of producers,
hindering future film production. Despite the implementation of anti- piracy
regulations, the pirate industry continues to thrive, indicating a
deeper-rooted issue. To combat this, stricter governmental regulations are
imperative, alongside enhanced industry oversight to prevent unauthorized
distribution and leakage of content. Additionally, raising consumer awareness
about the detrimental effects of piracy is
crucial. Curbing piracy is not only the responsibility of individuals but also
requires collective action from society as a whole.
Prime
Minister Narendra Modi has articulated a vision for India to emerge as the
global content hub, leveraging its rich heritage and cultural diversity as key
strengths. In alignment with this vision, the Union Minister for Information
and Broadcasting acknowledges Indian Cinema's pivotal role as a major
contributor to India's soft power. Indian cinema not only promotes the
country's culture, society, and values on a global scale but also serves as a
powerful tool for projecting India's narrative to the world. He said “the empowerment of Indian Film Industry with
Ease of Doing Business and its protection from the menace of Privacy, would go
a long way in growth of content
creation ecosystem in India, and would help safeguard the interests of all artists and artisans working in the
sector”.
The Indian film industry,
producing over 3,000 films annually in 40+
languages, stands as one of
the largest and most globalized sectors worldwide. Amidst technological
advancements, piracy has surged, exacerbated by the internet and social media.
The passage of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023 by Parliament signifies a crucial
step towards combating piracy and empowering the Indian film industry.
This legislative action not only addresses piracy challenges but also enhances
the Ease of Doing Business for the industry.
If is a fact that there is widespread availability of pirated products
in the Indian online media despite new digital rights management provisions promulgated by the parliament and the massive John Doe orders granted by the Indian Judiciary. All these also do not provide
adequate solutions to the
problem of piracy. There are however two important aspects to consider in this
regard.180 Firstly, as discussed earlier, there are many consumers and many
hosts of Indian online pirated movies overseas, the promulgation of Digital Rights
Management provisions under
the Indian Law on Intellectual Property Law will
never be a solution to this type of piracy, taking into accounts the
territorial limitations of the Copyright Law. The same territorial limitations
of copyright also limit the scope of the orders like John Doe to Internet
Service Providers in India.
Secondly, and most importantly, the piracy of Indian film products abroad
is mainly due to the inability of the Indian film industry to serve these markets with legitimate products. For example, as shown in the above section,
the number of cinemas in which Indian
films are released
abroad is much smaller than
that of (potential) consumers living in the country and the number of films
produced in the Indian film industry. And most importantly, the Indian film
industry is not exploiting the opportunities offered by new digital technologies to deliver content safely, quickly and directly to
(potential) consumers abroad. As long as the industry does not provide for
lawful access to consumers, we should expect
that more pirates
enter this lucrative
but neglected market. While the Indian legislature and
judiciary have acknowledged the issue of piracy, and new remedies have been adopted
to address online piracy, the effectiveness of these measures
remains questionable in light of the rising instances of piracy.
Moreover, Indian courts have yet to extensively explore the nuanced aspects
requiring attention for a more effective combat against piracy, a gap
particularly evident when compared to developed nations' legal precedents and measures.
[1] Gururaj D. Devarhublia and Dr. Anjani Singh Tomar, ‘A
Critical Study on Copyright Violations in the Indian Entertainment Industry
in the Internet Age’ (2021) 12 Turkish
Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry
1084-1092.
[2] Paramita Choudhury, ‘Global
Online Piracy of Films:
The Concept of Right to Internet
Access vis-à-vis John Doe
Orders & Online Censorship’ 2022 6(5) Journal of Positive School Psychology
4336-4347.
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) s 14.
[4] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) s 2(p).
[5] Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern Indian
Motion Picture Association (1977) 2 SCC 820.
[6] Sawkins v. Hyperion
Records (2005) EWCA Civ 565.
[7] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) s 2(f).
[8] Restaurant Lee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1983 MP 146.
[9] Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1984 Del
379.
[10] P. Thulasidas v. K. Vasanthakumari. C.S. No. 1286 of 1988.
[11] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)
s 37.
[12] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)
s 51.
[13] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957).
[14] The Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952).
[15] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
[16] ‘Digital Piracy’ (Interpol) www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Illicit-goods/Shop-safely/Digital-piracy> accessed 26 March 2024.
[17] Gunjan Chawla and Nidhi Buch, ‘Impact of Online Digital
Piracy on the Indian Film Industry: An Empirical
Investigation into Consumer Behaviour’ (2023) 28 Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights
[18] Paramita Choudhury, ‘Global
Online Piracy of Films: The Concept of Right to Internet
Access vis-à-vis John Doe
Orders & Online Censorship’ 2022 6(5) Journal of Positive School Psychology
4336-4347.
[19] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)
s 63.
[20] PIB Delhi, ‘Parliament Passes Cinematograph (Amendment)
Bill, 2023’ (PIB, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 31 July 2023) < https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1944435> accessed
20 March 2024.
[21] Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal
(2003) FSR 22.
[22] UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Others
v. 1337X.To and. Others, 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 8002.
[23] Balaji Motion Pictures
v. Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd, 2016 SCC On-line
Bom 4636.
[24] Star India v Sujit
Jha and Ors CS (OS) 3702/2014.
[25] Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jyoti Cable Network
& Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 5709.
Article Information
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE INDIAN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN THE INDUSTRY AGE
Authors: NISHA KUMAWAT
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.