• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Judgement Analysis: Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Latest News

Back

Judgement Analysis: Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  25 Oct 2020     Views:10106

Date of Judgement: 23/12/2016

Bench: S Ravindra Bhat, Deepa Sharma.

 

Background:

Myspace Inc. (appellants) is a User Generated Content (UGC) based website that provides a neutral platform for uploading, viewing and sharing music, entertainment, videos etc. Their chief source of revenue is advertisements that arise based on the string of keywords input by a user and not the content searched by the user. A user who wishes to upload content has to register and agree to comply with the Terms of Service that clearly specify that no content that infringes another’s intellectual property (IP) shall be uploaded. Being a US-based company, it complies with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and follows the feature of “Notice and Take Down”.

The respondents, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., commonly known as T-Series, is India’s largest music company with over 100,000 copyrighted songs. They conduct business through the sale and licensing of their copyrighted work either in the physical space or virtual realm through Internet Service providers (ISPs) and streaming platforms.

On the 20th of February, 2008, the respondents issued a notice to the appellant website to take down infringing content made available on www.myspace.com. Despite initial compliance, matters complicated as infringed content was still being broadcasted thus violating SCIL’s copyright. A suit for injunction was filed before a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court as amicable settlements failed. It was contested that the appellants had strategically used advertisements and exploited the respondents’ work to generate revenue and thus had caused irreparable damage and loss in revenue to the latter. The present matter is an interlocutory appeal against the impugned order that barred the appellants (Myspace Inc.) from hosting the respondent’s (SCIL) present as well as future content in addition to damages.

 

Impugned Judgement under question:

The learned single judge held that the appellants had contravened section 51 of the Copyright Act. The Safe Harbour principle was read down to act only as a mitigating factor with regard to damages and not an exemption from liability per se. It was also held they had breached section 79 by modifying content through limited license that was obtained to automatically modify users’ content to make it compatible with the website along with the freedom to take down.

 

Issues:

  1. Whether the appellants had actual knowledge of infringing material and thus involved section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957
  2. Whether the proviso to Section 81 in the Information Technology Act, 2000 overrides the “safe harbour” granted to intermediaries under Section 79.
  3. Whether sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act and Section 51 of the Copyright Act can be read harmoniously.

 

Laws Applicable:

  1. Information Technology Act, 2000. (IT Act)
  2. Copyright Act, 1957

 

Arguments Advanced:

Myspace, had the Hash Block Filter Tool, Take Down Stay Down Tool and the Rights Management Tool (RMT) in place to protect creators’ IP. The respondents were given the liberty of opting for RMT through which they could create digital fingerprints for their content. However, this was rejected by the respondents who primarily aimed at shifting the entire burden upon the website to monitor and sought to disclaim responsibility. Previous orders resulted in SCIL giving a blanket list of songs owned by them and asked the appellants to take them down without mentioning specific URLs. Such a task was technologically implausible due to the volume of data under concern.

The appellants also sought protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, being a safe harbour protection for intermediaries, as they were an intermediary according to section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act. It was also reiterated that the nature of Ad revenue was such that the content bore no relation to the advertisements on the website. It was finally submitted that the previous order to take down content was vague and far-fetching, as it sought to restrict even future content.

The respondents claimed that the appellant’s business model was harmful as it would infringe upon another’s IP. It was alleged that features such as identifiers and tags only made it more accessible to the masses who were able to view the respondent’s works for free. It was submitted that Myspace was not an ISP but rather a resource centre. The appellants were also alleged to have failed the grounds under section 79 as they initiated transmission and failed to observe due diligence.

 

Judgement:

The verdict of the 2 judge bench was formed on progressive grounds with the court taking into account the difficulties and harshness faced by intermediaries. It held that the imposition of a vague order would subsequently result in Myspace shutting down its operations in India which would further exacerbate the matter. The latter half of the previous order that granted injunction against future works was held to be void as ‘work’ under section 51 of the Copyright Act was held to apply only to present and existing content and not those in the making.

With regard to issue 1, it was established that mere use of safeguard tools didn’t convey actual knowledge. The modification of content under limited license was automated and did not involve manual interference. Section 51(a)(ii) also holds that there shall be no liability for contravention unless the person was aware or had reasonable grounds to believe so. The act of giving a catalogue that ran into volumes but not specific URLs was held to be unreasonable. The flaw with such an expectation lies in the fact that this would result in the taking down of content even held by authorised persons such as distributors. A person’s post may even be pulled down to a small fraction of it containing copyrighted content and the same is a chilling effect on free speech. The word knowledge has to be read in light of the interpretation in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) whereby it refers to a court order. However, the lack of specificity and technical hardships in executing the order were sufficient grounds to maintain that Myspace had no knowledge.

India’s safe harbour principle is on similar lines to that of UK’s ECD rather than USA’s DMCA. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act was held to be subject only to the restrictions laid down under sections 79(2) & 79(3). The Court observed that it was an affirmative defence to those intermediaries that satisfied the conditions and not a blanket immunity from liability. The learned judges were also of the view that Section 81 of the IT Act did not take away the defence of an intermediary even in matters of copyrights. Myspace satisfied the tests under section 79(2) and 79(3) as it did not initiate the transmission (merely a facilitator) and observed due diligence by providing Terms of Service and a Privacy Policy. The appellants were thus entitled to the safe harbour principle.

The judges ruled the third issue in the affirmative as sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act as well as section 51 of the Copyright Act were to be read harmoniously in interests of equitable relief. SCIL was ordered to provide a specific list containing URLs of infringing content to the appellants who were to take it down within 36 hours of notice. Myspace was also ordered to effectuate mechanisms, if available, to track how much advertisement money was earned from infringing content to ascertain the sum of damages in the future.

 

Conclusion:

The Court through its verdict established that sections 79 & 81 of the IT Act had to be read along with section 51 of the Copyright Act. Moreover, knowledge under section 51 strictly meant actual knowledge and interim reliefs for intermediaries were ordered to be specific. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi Court had to balance various issues due to far-reaching implications. On one hand, an owner’s IP was being grossly infringed whereby on the other, the intermediary was made liable to difficult and burdensome tasks. Holding intermediaries liable for acts not within their control would significantly hamper India’s digital realm as companies will relocate to countries that offer them better protection. However, an intermediary should strive to enforce more safeguards to prohibit infringement and not seek shelter under the defence of a few checking mechanisms in place. The appellants' nature of revenue generation also added to their favour as the monetisation was not based on the content per se and thus could not be held to have directly profited off the infringed content.

The judgement goes ahead and suggests the use of the 4-step mechanism recommended by the OECD in 2010 to avoid further conflicts, namely: notice and takedown (ii) notice and notice (iii) notice and disconnection and (iv)filtering. Intermediaries are susceptible to the most amount of risk as the onus of liability automatically rests on them. Availing of the safe harbour principle in India has been crafted in a way to ensure there is no active participation or misfeasance on their part and this decision ensures clarity in that matter.

 

 


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  25 Oct 2020     Views:10106

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5344
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:4779
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4763
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4549
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:4579
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4234
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:4605
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:4600
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:4715
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:4896
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:4604
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:4581
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:4535
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4651
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4612
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:4928
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:4762
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:5589
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:4724
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5068
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:4969
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5159
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5014
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5132
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:4917
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8280
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:6847
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:6885
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:6686
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:7638
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:6983
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:5526
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6300
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:5564
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:5572
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:5817
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:5515
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:5497
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:5548
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:5513
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:5868
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5373
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5396
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:5842
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6037
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:5618
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6054
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8013
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6049
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:5714
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11343
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5438
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6285
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:5862
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:5562
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:5799
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5444
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:5891
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:5564
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6014
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6219
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6448
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10343
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:5666
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:5530
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:6652
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5376
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5392
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:6969
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:5916
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5476
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:5518
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5458
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:7563
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:5735
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5383
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5233
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6318
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5260
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:5672
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:5515
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5201
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5201
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5356
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:7786
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6396
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5482
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5194
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5400
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:4970
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5184
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5020
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:5613
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:5737
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5466
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:5946
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5250
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5385
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:5970
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:5712
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:95700
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73258
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:70677
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:69817
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59171
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.