ACTS RELATING TO CABLE

INTERNET PIRACY

"Internet piracy is downloading or distribution of unauthorized copies of intellectual property such as movies, television, music, games and software programs via the Internet. Illegal downloads occur in many forms including file sharing networks, pirate servers, websites and hacked computers. Each file posted on the Internet can result in millions of downloads. Hard goods pirates also use the Internet to sell illegally duplicated DVDs through auctions and websites. Piracy is theft."

CABLE OPERATOR

Law says that every cable operator shall maintain a register in the prescribed form indicating therein in brief the programmes transmitted or re-transmitted through the cable service during a month and such register shall be maintained by the cable operator for a period of one year after the actual transmission or re-transmission of the said programmes.

relevant provisions of

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, as under:

 [(aa)] ‘‘cable operator’’ means any person who provides cable service through a cable television network or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable television network;

(b)‘‘cable service’’ means the transmission by cables of programmes including re-transmission by cables of any broadcast television signals;

(c) "cable television network’’ means any system consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment, designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers;

Xxx                                                                      xxx

7. Maintenance of register.—Every cable operator shall maintain a register in the prescribed form indicating therein in brief the programmes transmitted or re-transmitted through the cable service during a month and such register shall be maintained by the cable operator for a period of one year after the actual transmission or re-transmission of the said programmes.

Relevant provisions of  Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, as under:

Xxx                                                                        xxx                                                         xxx

6. Programme Code:-

                   Xxx                                                       xxx                                                         xxx

(3) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any programme in respect of which copyright subsists under the copyright Act, 1957, (14 of 1957) unless he has been granted a licence by owners of copyright under that Act in respect of such programme.

Public Exhibition

".........exhibiting movies by playing prerecorded cassettes in VCRs in their restaurants comes within the ban contained in Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 as already seen prohibits the exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act. A “place” is defined by Section 2(b) to include a house, building, etc."

"..........viewing of video cassettes or video films by a domestic audience in a private residence does not amount to “public exhibition”, and, by necessary implication, does not require certification by the Board."

"Dictionary meaning of the word “exhibit”, used as a verb, is to “publicly display”. In the context of the Cinematograph Act, to “exhibit” a film is to display it publicly such that it can be viewed simultaneously by large sections of the public, normally by inviting them to a particular venue where the film will be screened, for a fee."

"Under Section 21 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. “exhibit” is defined as “exhibit at any entertainment, to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets”

VERDICT

“Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has clarified that the viewing of video cassettes or video films by a domestic audience in a private residence does not amount to “public exhibition”, and, by necessary implication, does not require certification by the Board.”

“………That non-possessing of the letter of consent from the holder of copyright of film or assignee thereof for doing business in such films makes it a cognizable offence.”

PHILOSOPHY OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT

“The underlying philosophy of the Copyright Act is that the owner of the copyright is free to enter into voluntary agreement or licenses on terms mutually acceptable to him and the licensee. The Act confers on the copyright owner the exclusive right to do the various acts enumerated in Section 14. An infringement of copyright occurs if one of those acts is done without the owner’s license. A license passes no interest, but merely makes lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful. The Act also expressly recognizes the notion of an “exclusive license” which is defined in Section 2(j). But, that does not mean, as would be noticed from the discussions made hereinafter, that it would apply in all situations irrespective of the nature of right as also the rights of others. It means a license which confers on the licensee, to the exclusion of all other persons (including the owner of the copyright) any right comprised in the copyright in a work. An exclusive licensee has specific rights under the Act such as the right to have recourse to civil remedies under Section 55 of the Act. This Scheme shows that a copyright owner has complete freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labour by earning an agreed fee or royalty through the issuance of licenses. Hence, the owner of a copyright has full freedom to enjoy the fruits of his work by earning an agreed fee or royalty through the issue of licenses. But, this right, to repeat, is not absolute. It is subject to right of others to obtain compulsory licence as also the terms on which such licence can be granted.”

THEORY OF 156(3)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627, has held that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter..............that the investigation referred to therein is the same investigation, the various steps to be adopted for it have been elaborated in Chapter XII of the Code. Such investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer in charge of a police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation started thereafter can end up only with the report filed by the police as indicated in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. But that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code. But the significant point to be noticed is, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence. MAGISTRATE'S TIME SHOULD NOT BE WASTED Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, has held that a complaint disclosing cognizable offences may well justify a Magistrate in sending the complaint, under Section 156(3) to the police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police.

Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide Judgment dated 15.5.2007 has held that the property which is sought to be protected is the business reputation and goodwill that is injured by the said misrepresentation. Action for passing off can be initiated, where interest of an author or owner of a copyright work in his business reputation and goodwill is damaged by misrepresentation that falls outside the copyright law, i.e. the Act. Passing off action will be maintainable, when the claim is not based on infringement of copyright but damage to reputation and goodwill of the proprietor and the said damage is caused by deceit or misrepresentation.