Copyright Infringement Online
Copyright infringement online refers to the unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, or public display of copyrighted content (like videos, music, images, software, or literary works) on digital platforms without the permission of the copyright owner. The advent of the internet has significantly increased the scope and complexity of copyright violations due to ease of access and distribution.
I. Legal Framework (Brief Overview)
Most countries follow similar principles derived from international agreements like:
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
WIPO Copyright Treaty
TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
In national laws:
United States: Copyright Act, 1976 (and DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998)
India: Copyright Act, 1957 (amended in 2012)
UK: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988
II. Elements of Online Copyright Infringement
To prove online copyright infringement, the following must be established:
Ownership of a valid copyright.
Copying or Use of protected elements without authorization.
Substantial Similarity between the original and the infringing work.
Publication or distribution on online platforms (e.g., websites, YouTube, torrents).
III. Case Laws (Detailed Discussion)
Here are more than five important cases that dealt with online copyright infringement:
1. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts:
Napster, a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service, allowed users to share MP3 music files. Copyright holders, including A&M Records, sued Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
Issues:
Whether Napster was liable for copyright infringement even though it did not directly upload or download the files.
Held:
The court held Napster liable for contributory and vicarious infringement because:
It had knowledge that infringing files were being shared.
It provided the means for users to infringe copyrights.
It had the ability to control the system and financially benefited from the infringement.
Impact:
This landmark case shaped the responsibility of online service providers and platforms for user-uploaded content.
2. Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts:
ReDigi created a platform that allowed users to resell legally purchased digital music files. Capitol Records sued, alleging copyright infringement.
Issues:
Can digital music files be resold without violating the copyright?
Held:
The court ruled that ReDigi’s service infringed copyrights, rejecting the application of the “first sale doctrine” to digital goods because:
The act of transferring digital files necessarily involves making a copy.
That copy is an unauthorized reproduction.
Impact:
Clarified that reselling digital content is not equivalent to reselling physical goods.
3. Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts:
Viacom sued YouTube for allowing users to upload copyrighted videos from shows like MTV and Comedy Central.
Issues:
Was YouTube liable for hosting infringing content uploaded by users?
Held:
Initially, the court sided with YouTube under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, which protect platforms that remove infringing content once notified.
However, on appeal, it was clarified that if YouTube had actual knowledge of specific infringements and still failed to act, it could be liable.
Impact:
This case refined the understanding of "safe harbor" and platform liability for user-generated content.
4. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS) v. Aditya Pandey & Ors., (2012) 50 PTC 134 (Del)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts:
IPRS sued Aditya Pandey and others for unauthorized communication of copyrighted musical works on TV and online platforms.
Issues:
Whether a license from the producer of the sound recording was sufficient or whether a license from IPRS (lyricist/composer society) was also necessary.
Held:
The Delhi High Court ruled that once the copyright in a sound recording is licensed, separate permissions from IPRS for public performance or online streaming are not required.
Impact:
Although this decision limited IPRS’s claims, it raised complex issues about multiple copyrights in a single work (lyrics, composition, sound recording) — a key issue in digital licensing.
5. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc., 2011 (48) PTC 49 (Del)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts:
T-Series (Super Cassettes) sued MySpace for hosting copyrighted Bollywood music and videos uploaded by users.
Issues:
Was MySpace, as an intermediary, liable for user-uploaded infringing content?
Held:
The Delhi High Court held that MySpace was not exempt under the "safe harbor" provision of Section 79 of the IT Act because:
MySpace was aware of infringing content.
It altered and monetized the content (ads, editing).
Its role was active, not passive.
Impact:
This judgment emphasized that platforms that modify or benefit from infringing content can lose intermediary protections.
6. UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337x.to and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002
Jurisdiction: India
Facts:
UTV, a media company, sued various rogue torrent and streaming websites like 1337x.to for hosting and distributing pirated versions of films and TV shows.
Issues:
How can Indian courts effectively block access to websites engaging in mass copyright infringement?
Held:
The Delhi High Court allowed dynamic injunctions, meaning:
Once a website is proven to be infringing, future mirror/clone sites can also be blocked without new lawsuits.
Courts can issue John Doe orders against unknown defendants.
Impact:
This case made enforcement against online piracy much more effective in India.
IV. Conclusion
Online copyright infringement is a growing challenge due to the ease of copying and distributing digital content. While laws and courts strive to strike a balance between content protection and freedom of the internet, several landmark judgments — especially involving intermediaries and digital platforms — have laid down principles such as:
Intermediary liability is conditional, not absolute.
Knowledge and control over content determine responsibility.
Safe harbor protections require active compliance with takedown mechanisms.
Courts have increasingly used injunctions (including dynamic injunctions) to combat piracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments