1. OPEN DEFENCE WEL-COME TO THE Est.: 1962 NAAC ‘A’ Grade
MHRD NIRF-28th Rank

2. A LEGAL STUDY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO VIDEO PIRACY IN THE INDIAN FILM INDUSTRY A
Presentation By
Shri. Vivek Y. Dhupdale
B.Com., LL.M., NET
Under the Guidance of
Dr. (Mrs.) Minal M. Bapat
B.Sc., LL.M., Ph.D. (Law)
Principal, N.S. Soti Law College, Sangli
(GUIDE)
Dr. Milind Jagannath Joshi
M.Com, M.C.M, Ph.D.
Systems Programmer & Co-ordinator,
Internet Unit, Shivaji University, Kolhapur
(CO-GUIDE)
&

3. - WIPO Director General Francis Gurry1
“Numerous players contribute to creating a film, and to enabling us to watch it as a seamless performance, woven from a multiplicity of intellectual property.”
- WIPO Director General Francis Gurry1
1 World IP Day Message from the Director General. Retrieved from: ip - outreach / en/ ipday / 2014/ dg_ message.html.

4. Introduction
Property
Tangible
In-Tangible (IP)
Movable
Immovable
Patents
Copyrights
Industrial Designs
Geographical Indications
The right which are conferred to the creator are called as the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

5. Introduction to IPR
Intellectual property (IP) refers to the creations of the human mind like-
inventions,
literary and
artistic works, and
symbols,
names,
images and
designs used in commerce.
and an audi-visual creation called films

6. Industrial Property Copyrights
IPR
Industrial Property Copyrights
Inventions (Patents), literary and artistic works such as
Trademarks, novels, poems and plays, films, musical
Industrial designs, and works artistic works such as drawings,
Geographic indications paintings, photographs, sculptures and architectural designs
IPR protects the interests of creators by giving them property rights over their creations.

7. Statement of the Problem
Video Piracy is purportedly threatening the very existence of movie and video production worldwide.
As per a Northbridge Capital Asia report, the Indian film industry-
estimated to be worth Rs 14,400 crore
produces around 1,050 films every year,
but loses 14 % of its revenue to video piracy as affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police V Dinesh Reddy.
90% of pirated DVDs of films available in Indian market are a result of illegal camcorder recording in theatres.

8. Statement of the Problem
Piracy and counterfeiting are growing and deprived the Indian entertainment industry of some $4 billion (Rs16,240 crore), or
almost 40% of potential annual revenues, as well as around 820,000 jobs are lost, according to the first Bollywood- Hollywood collaborative study
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 protects the rights of owners in copyrighted works of films.
But the Courts in India today are facing many hurdles such as-
pendency of cases,
overburden of legal system, and
uncertain and casual approach by the law enforcement agencies.

9. Statement of the Problem
The most embarrassing moment for India is that it still remains on the US Priority Watch List even in 2016.
US has been continuously urging India to improve its IPR protection regime.
However, in India the IPR protection and enforcement challenges are growing, and there are serious questions regarding the future condition of the innovation climate in India.
This situation led to the emergence and operation of strong anti-piracy movement, which include organizations like-
The Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA),
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) and
the Hong Kong Film and Video Services Ltd.

10. Statement of the Problem
Types of video piracy includes-
Unauthorized theatre cam-cord recording.
File sharing, illegal video downloading and streaming
illegal reproduction and distribution of pirated CDs, VCDs and DVDs,
import and exports of pirated material and
theatrical camcorder piracy in countries like-
Russia,
the middle east,
China,
Philippines,
Hungary, Taiwan,
Malaysia and
Thailand, etc.

11. Statement of the Problem
India is among the top 10 countries in the world where illegal file sharing of Hollywood movies takes place, according to a latest research report prepared by Envisional for the Motion Picture Association (MPA).
Apart from the traditional methods of video piracy, the two main internet piracy methods used in India are, the-
file-sharing network ‘bittorrent’ and
web-based file hosts ‘cyberlockers’.

12. Statement of the Problem
For instance:
Recent Hindi film ‘Kaminey’ is estimated to have been downloaded over 3.5 lakh times on Bittorrent with around 2/3rd of the downloaders located in India.
India has around 70 lakh broadband subscribers, The 2G, 3G and now 4 G (second, third and fourth generation) has resulted into the rapid increase in the internet connectivity, and has helped internet piracy to boost in India.

13. Statement of the Problem
The producers of the motion pictures are losing their hard earned money due to video piracy;and
At the same time the Government also continues to lose the revenue in the form of entertainment tax evasions by these pirates.

14. Significance of the Research
India is of the fastest growing economies in the world.
It is also doing good process in its entertainment industry by producing maximum number of films in the world.
Some of the films in India have also become hit in the International markets.
Movies such as Lagan, Taree Zamin Pe, etc. have been nominated for Oscar awards.

15. Significance of the Research
Therefore some of the foreign film producers are also exploring the opportunity to invest in India as they consider India to be one of the greatest Investment hubs.
For instance, recently the Anil Ambani’s Reliance Big Entertainment has struck a $1.5 billion deal with Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks SKG to produce six films per year for the next six years.

16. Significance of the Research
For instance the co-production announced between Yash Raj Films (YRF) and Walt Disney has produced a film called the Roadside Romeo, a 3D animation film where actors such as Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor and Jaaved Jaferi have provided their voices to the cartoon characters.

17. Significance of the Research
After a successful co-producing three films, The Name- sake, I Think I Love My Wife (with Fox Searchlight) and The Happening (20th Century Fox), UTV is has done an independent Hollywood film called The Ex- Terminators, starring Heather Graham which was released in 2009

18. Significance of the Research
Tying up with these global firms and co-producing films will provide Indian Film Companies to have quick access to the international market so that they can do good business besides doing well in domestic markets.
Therefore, to sustain and keep its place in the global movie market, India needs to strengthen its IPR laws and seriously protect the copyrights in movies not only of Indian films but also of foreign films.

19. Objectives of the Study
To study the various causes of video piracy through the perception of the general public.
To identify the areas in which video piracy takes place.
To identify the various types of video piracy existing.
To identify the problem faced by the producers, distributors and exhibitors due to video piracy.
To study the legal provisions existing to control the menace of video piracy.
To study the legal opinion of expert lawyers in the field of IPR relating to the menace of video piracy.
To suggest suitable measures to reduce and control the menace of video piracy in the Indian film industry.

20. Statement of Hypothesis
The existing Legal Regime of IPR in India is not adequate enough to control and/or stop the menace of video piracy.
Despite of strict police vigil and timely action, video piracy continues to haunt the producers, distributors and the exhibitors of films and their videos.
There are various forms of copyright violations in films which often go unchecked because there are no sufficient complaints from the stakeholders against it.
The law enforcement agencies lack proper mechanisms, ideal equipments, technological soundness and proper training to tackle the menace of Video Piracy.

21. Research Methodology Adopted
Doctrinal:
Analysis of the existing legislations.
Analysis of the relevant case laws.
Taking assistance of other available sources such as Books, Law Magazines, Periodicals, Laws Journals, Internet Websites, etc.
Non-Doctrinal / Empirical:
Spot survey of places like video libraries and shops, Video Parlours and other outlet shops selling CDs, DVDs, of pirated movies etc.
Using Questionnaire and interview methods of study the views expressed by the following respondents:-
Film Producer, distributors and exhibitors
General Public and the endusers
Legal Practitioners dealing with video piracy cases
Police Officers and Crime Branch Personnel

22. Universe and Sample size
Since the Universe is infinite in size, the researcher has chosen 300 respondents as a Thumb Rule for Sample size.
100 respondents among the general public are randomly selected from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities for the distribution of Questionaaire.
15 Producers of films were interviewed.
3 Police Officers in-charge of Cyber Cells were interviewed from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur.
19 legal practitioners were also interviewed.

23. Limitations of the Study
The area of field survey and Data Collection was limited to Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities.
Deals only with Video Piracy in the Hindi and Marathi Film Industry and not of any other videos, documentaries, short films or Televisions Shows, etc.

24. Indian Film Industry
Kerala,
Maharashtra,
Manipur,
Odisha,
Punjab,
Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu,
Telangana,
Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal
Indian film industry includes films made in some of the major states such as-
Andhra Pradesh,
Assam,
Bihar,
Gujarat,
Haryana,
Jammu and Kashmir,
Jharkhand,
Karnataka, .

25. Indian Film Industry
Indian movies have always been a very important source of entertainment not only in India but also to the audience around the world.
Indian movies directly contributes Rs crores out of the entertainment business of Rs crores.
Movies also contribute towards adding as an additional source of content for the television, cable and music business.
Indian film industry has recently celebrated its 100 years of standing in the year 2012 (ie., 1913 to 2012).

26. Indian Film Industry
The film industry is setting up large number of cinema halls all over the country.
However-
due to higher entertainment tax rates,
fragmented ownership,
higher cost of setting up of new theatres,
regulations imposed by Government and
non-availability of organized funding,
The industry is finding it difficult to setup and/or renovate or upgrade their facilities.
Resulting into decline in the quality of such cinema halls and
Therefore, the viewers are opting to stay away from the ill- maintained cinema halls and
Have started resorting to using the alternative movie watching options such as-
home video,
cable TV,
satellite TV channels,
multi-media devices such as computers, smart phones through internet, etc.

27. Indian Film Industry It is the-
Healthy growth in the Indian economy,
rise in consumption level,
changing pattern of choices and
the overall improvement in the life style of the consumer
resulted into the boom of the organized retail sector of India.
Number of business units such as-
retail outlets,
super/star bazaars,
departmental stores,
malls,
finance and business outlets-
have started providing the facilities of multi-screen cinema halls commonly called as Multiplex as a part of their entertainment unit under one roof.

28. Indian Film Industry
But all cannot afford to watch movies in the multiplex cinema.
They are therefore, left with no choice then to resort to the alternative mode of satisfying their need to entertainment by way of either watching movies in the ill- maintained cinema halls or by buying pirated CDs or DVDs at a much cheaper rate.

29. Indian Film Industry
Income and Expenditure of a cinema theatre of multiplexes:
a) Income:
Ticket income, snacks and soft drinks and advertising income are the main sources of income of a theatre or multiplex.
b) Expenditure / cost:
i) Entertainment Tax,
ii) Share of a Distributor,
iii) Snacks and Sift drink counter cost,
iv) Personnel cost,
v) Property rentals,
vi) Electricity, water, security charges,
vii) Marketing costs such as newspaper advertising, hoardings, posters and other creative cost,
viii) Maintenance cost of the premises of theatre or multiplex.

30. Indian Film Industry
Indian cinema is the backbone of entertainment industry.
It provides entertainment to almost 1000 million people in India and 20 million strong Diaspora spread across 110 countries.
Traditional way of viewing cinema is by going to theatres – but with the advent of TV, Videos, Computers and Smart Phones people have almost stopped visiting theatres.
Most people want to watch movies immediately after release in their homes without visiting theatres, especially the NRIs and the PIOs.
Therefore, for these viewers there is an option available called “webcasting” means “broadcasting” moviews over the Internet either live or on demand.

31. Indian Film Industry
The success of a film is not only dependent on theatrical, video, audio collections at the domestic market but also from the collection from overseas market.
Films like “Kal Ho Naa Ho” was the top grosser overseas in and had grossed Rs. 25 crores
while :Veer – Zaara” (2004) had collected over Rs. 35 crores.

32. Indian Film Industry
According on study in the Indian film Industry contributed around $6.2 billion to India's Gross National Product (GDP) and
Has employed over 1.8 million people.
Has contributed around $1.5 billion to the Indian economy
That also includes the $67 million contribution of the American and international film industry released in India.
The total revenue from various sources such as theatrical, home video, cable TV, Dish TV, etc. of the US and foreign film industry in India is estimated at $180 million.
The total revenues of the Indian film industry was expected to reach over $13 billion by 2013.

33. Video Piracy Video piracy means an act of- Film Producer’s Rights:
copying, showing, distributing and
commercially dealing with a video of movies without any legal authority in return line money etc.
Film Producer’s Rights:
According to section 14(c) of Copyright Act, 1957 it is the exclusive right of the cinematograph film producer to do or authorize the doing of the acts prescribed therein.
It is therefore, his exclusive right to make the copy of the film and cause the film to be seen or heard by public.
In this way Copyright Act, IPC and Informatio Technology Act, 2000 (As Amended in 2008) deal with the menace of video piracy.

34. Video Piracy
Usually, video cassettes. CDs / DVDs are meant for home viewing only.
It consists of warnings on the opposite side of the Certificate issues by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) during the release of video rights reads as under:
WARNING
We, Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., hereby declare that we are lawful copyright holders of content of this DVD. We hereby warn public in general, specifically CABLE TV / DISH ANTENNA (CATV / MATV) operators and viewers, that usage / operation / copying / viewing of the content of this DVD for / thorough CABLE TV / DISH ANTENNA (CATV / MATV) system is an infringement of our copyright.
Unauthorised public performance, hiring, renting or copyrighting of this DVD is strictly prohibited.
This DVD is strictly meant for viewing at home and is prohibited to be shown in Video Clubs, Hotels, Hospitals, Video Coaches or any other public places in whatsoever manner.

35. Video Piracy
PIRATED DVD
ORIGINAL DVD

36. Types of video Piracy Types of Pirated video prints of a film:
There are basically four main types of pirated video prints of a film.:
Print made in foreign countries: Most of them are made in the countries such as Hong Kong, London, Russia and some of the Gulf countries from the original film without legal license.
Print made within India: a first copy illegally from an original film within India, especially prior to its release.
Re-recorded copies of video films from CDs/DVDs: These include video prints of an original film recorded on an original CD or a DVD when the video right are released by the producer.
These re-recorded prints on CDs/ DVDs lack clarity in sound as well as picture quality.
Theatre prints via cam-coder: These include video recording made in cinema theatres at the time of screening of the film in a cinema hall.

37. Police Action:
The video piracy was a bailable offence earlier which led to the increase in piracy activities
Therefore, the film producers appealed to the government to stop this menace.
Therefore, inorder to curb the hazards of piracy and also to impose formidable checks, the Copyright Act, 1957 was amended in October, 1984
The amended Act video piracy became a non-bailable offence with
a minimum of 6 months imprisonment and Rs. 50,000 fine and
a mixture of three years imprisonment and Rs. 2 lakhs fine.

38. Some Statistics of Police action against Video Piracy
Mumbai Police conducted raids in the places such as-
Thakur Complex,
Kandivli station,
Oshiwara,
Dadar station,
Worli Naka,
Dahisar,
Charni Road,
Azad Maidan,
Fountain,
Jogeshwari,
Bandra,
Andheri,
Thane,
Ulhasnagar,
Panvel, etc.

39. Some Statistics from Cyber Cells Units in Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities
The status of online and offline video piracy cases under the Jurisdiction of Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cyber Cells (Crime Branch Units) over the period of 5 years (2009 to July 2015).
Place
N1 with %
N2 with %
N3 with %
N4 with %
Mumbai
94 (43.72)
0 (0 %)
Pune
93 (43.26)
388 (69.91)
26 (66.67%)
26 (66.67 %)
Kolhapur
28 (13.02)
167 (30.09)
13 (33.33 %)
Total
215
555 39
N1 = Number of Police Stations.
N2 = Number of Cyber Café, Video Parlours, etc.
N3 = No of Cases Actually Filed in the Respective Police Stations
N4 = No. of Raids Conducted

40. Graphical Representation of the above Data
Status of online and offline video piracy cases under the jurisdiction of Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur in Maharashtra State.

41. Summary of Interview with Police Inspector In-charge of Cyber Cells
Relating to the causes of decline of theater going public:
Activities of video piracy existing everywhere.
Below Poverty Line (BPL) cannot afford to buy cinema tickets and hence they prefer buying pirated CDs/DVDs.
The younger generation’s (netizens) access to pirated movies has become much easier due to availability of mass media devices.
The movies are downloaded with the help of BitTorrent, Youtube, etc. and stored on electronic devices for future viewing.
Unlike Multi-Plexes, some theatres are very dirty and ill- maintained.

42. Summary of Interview with Police Inspector In-charge of Cyber Cells
Relating to causes of video piracy:
Lack of awareness among the general public about the seriousness of video piracy.
Lack of stringent actions from the law enforcement agencies against these pirates.
Lack of adequate legal and technical training and awareness among the Police Personal or agencies

43. International and Indian Legal Regime against Video Piracy
WIPO’s Role on Video Piracy:
WIPO Copyright Treaty, in particular Article 8 on the exclusive right of making available to the public.
In this context, the Berne Convention requires member states to protect cinematographic works (Article 14bis) and to enable the seizure of infringing copies within a member state or on importation (Article 16).

44. International and Indian Legal Regime against Video Piracy
Part III of the TRIPS Agreement requires WTO members to whom it applies to make available to right holders actions for injunctions (Article 44), damages (Article 45) and other remedies, such as disposal and destruction of infringing copies and the disposal of materials and implements predominantly used in their creation (Article 46).

45. International and Indian Legal Regime against Video Piracy
The TRIPS Agreement also requires criminal remedies to be available at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale (Article 61).
The film industry uses both copyright and registered trademarks in order to attack piracy.
Evidently almost all films are released bearing registered trademarks, which appear both on screen and on the packaging of home entertainment products.

46. Legal Regime: Indian Scenario:
Copyright Act, 1957
Sec. 13. Works in which copyright subsists.
- Copyright subsist in the following classes of works-
original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
cinematograph films; and
[sound recordings;]
Sec. 26. Term of copyright in cinematograph films
-Copyright shall subsist until [sixty] years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published.

47. Legal Regime: Indian Scenario:
Sec. 51. When copyright infringed.
-Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-
when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights-
i) Exercises any rights conferred upon the author; or
ii) Permits for profit any place for the commission of
unathorised act; or
iii) Makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire; or
iv) Distributes for the purpose of trade to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright; or
v) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
vi) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work
For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".

48. Remedies Against Infringement:
There are three types of remedies available for infringement of copyright (in the present Research Work it is the Video Piracy):
1. Civil Remedies, and
2. Administrative Remedies.
3. Criminal Remedies

49. CIVIL REMEDIES:(Sections 54 to 62 Copyright Act, 1975)
Are of two types:
a) Preventive Civil Remedies:
(i) Interlocutory Injunction: To stop the infringing work of the Defendant from continuing.
(ii) Mareva Injunction: restrain the defendant from disposing of or removing Court Assets
(iii) Permanent Injunction:
(iv) Anton Piller Orders:
b) Compensatory Remedies:
(i) Damages
(ii) Damages for Conversion / Delivery Up
(iii) Accounts of Profit

50. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
It is useful in preventing importation of infringing copies in India.
Sec. 53(2) of the Copyright Act empowers the Registrar to-
a) enter any ship, dock or premises where any such infringing copies may be found; and
b) examine such copies.
This is to determine whether the such copies infringe the copyright in the work of the applicant.

51. CRIMINAL REMEDIES (Sec.63 to 70)
These provisions can be availed simultaneously along with civil.
More effective than civil because it can be disposed of quickly.
Knowledge or mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence.

52. CRIMINAL REMEDIES (Sec.63 to 70)
OFFENCES: Sec. 63 if any person who knowingly infringes –
a) the copyright in a work; or
b) any other right conferred by the Act
c) or knowingly abets such infringement
PUNISHMENT:
The offence is punishable with an imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-, but may extend to Rs. 2 lakhs.

53. Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008):
Following are the relevant provisions of the:
Sec. 1(2) read with Sec. 75 of the Act provides for extra-territorial application of the provisions of the Act.
Hence, if a person (including a foreign national) violates the copyright of a person by means of computer (internet / online video piracy for instance), computer system or computer network located in India, he would be liable under the provisions of the Act.
If a person violating the copyright of another by downloading or copying the same without permission will have to pay exemplary damages up to the tune of rupees one crore which is deterrent enough to prevent copyright violation.
A network service provider (ISP) will not be liable under this Act, rules or regulations for any third party information or data made available by him if he proves that the offence or contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence or contravention.

54. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Cinemaster (A Division of Asiavision Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) v. State of Gujarat [2010 Lawpage (Guj.) 1906]:
Brief Fact: Applicant filed a case against respondent for committing infringement of Copyrights by unauthorized public exhibition of films on videos Cassettes / Public Video CDs / DVDs without obtaining any license or written permission from the owner of copyright.
Held: The Video Companies as the owner of Copyright are indulging in activities violating the provisions of Sec. 7A of the Cinematographs Act, 1952, because a distinct serial number was not given to the Video Cassettes / CDs and DVDs by them.
The purchasers were also not given bills for purchase of Video Cassettes, CDs and DVDs at their authorized Video Shop, as they are wanted to evade huge excise duty.
It was held that such persons are not entitled to invoke the extra- ordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, interim relief which was granted was vacated.

55. Moser Baer India Limited v. Modern Cinema [2010 Lawpage (Del) 7288]:
JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Moser Baer India Limited v. Modern Cinema [2010 Lawpage (Del) 7288]:
Facts: The Plaintiff -business of manufacturing and acquiring video copyrights in films.
The Plaintiff acquired exclusive video rights in 70 Telugu films.
The Defendant had without license published and recorded the 70 films without any license.
Plaintiff filed suit for Permanent Injunction
Held: Since the Plaintiff was at fault by not disclosing the material facts about his relationship with the Defendant and many other things, the Court vacated the interim injunction and the petition got dismissed.

56. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009 Lawpage (Mad) 125]:
Facts: The Petitioner, who is the uncle of the detenu, challenges the order of detention passed by the Court.
The detention was made as the detenu was selling pirated DVDs and VCDs of Tamil Movies.
During the search in the shop, Police seized the items, such as-
Pirated films such as “villu”, Padikathavan”
DVDs of “Dindigul Sarathy’ other Tamil Films, etc. and
Some obscene film DVDs.
Thus, the detenue was branded as a ‘Video Pirate’ as contemplated under Sec. 2(j) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Held: That the detenue was only a seller of the pirated DVDs and the authorities have failed to proceed against the manufacturers even though in the confessional statement is a mention about the purchase of the pirated DVDs by the detenue.
Therefore, the petition was allowed setting aside the impugned order of detention.

57. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Ravi Teja Communication Cable TV Network v. Eendau TV Usodaya Enterprises Ltd. Television Division, Sun TV (Channel Plus) and Maa TV Maa Television Network [Petition No. 526 (C) of 2012]:
Facts: Respondents in the Trial case had pleaded that the Petitioner’s firm pirated the signals of the respondent and telecasted a pirated film “Desamuru”.
Since the Copyright of the movie is solely and exclusively owned by the Respondent under the Video Piracy Act the Petitioner was arrested.
He also tried to destroy the evidence by burning down his control room.
Held: Petitioner’s petitions for issuing direction to supply signals to the Petitioner by the Respondents was dismissed.

58. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Time Warner Entertainment Company I.P. v. Rpg Netcom Limited [2008 Lawpage (Del.) 2622]:
Facts: Plaintiff a US based corporation and carrying on business of film production.
Plaintiff files a Civil Suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from telecasting or broadcasting on their Cable network any cinematograph film, the copyright in which vests in them.
They also prayed for a decree directing the Defendant to hand over possession of infringing copies and a decree in their favour for the profits made by the Defendant.
Mostly the films shown were pirated copies of their works.
Held: Court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act, or transmitting signals or broadcasting, or carrying in its network, any cinematograph film to work, without prior licence of the Plaintiff.

59. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Khajanchi Film Exchange and Another v. State of M.P. and Others. [2002 Lawpage (MP) 257]:
Facts: The Appellants apprehended violation of Copyright Act by illegal duplication and screening of cinematograph film “Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam, with a view to provide quick entertainment to customers, cable operators indulge in making video cassettes and screen them through various means.
On this apprehension, protection was sought so that Police / Officials could take action and prevent commission of crime.
Consequently, writ petition was preferred seeking mandamus against 35 respondents.

60. The film was released on December 14, 2001.
JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
The film was released on December 14, 2001.
Writ Petition was filed on 28th January 2001 , 16 days before the release of the film.
Enough time appellants had, to approach the authorities / police and later to the respondents giving their reaction to the grievance and how it was ready to deal with the matter.
Therefore, unless the demand was put across and reaction awaited for some time, moving the court was pre-mature and unsustainable.

61. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
Held: The Petition was filed on mere apprehensions that appellants would be deprived of their right which did not exist when claim for mandamus was made.
Mandamus can be granted only when default, commission or omission takes place which had not happened in this case.
Judgment of Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality and consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

62. David Pon Pandian v. State [2001 (2) ALT Cri 344]:
JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
David Pon Pandian v. State [2001 (2) ALT Cri 344]:
Facts: M/s. A.V.M, Productions Ltd., Madras, produced a Tamil film titled "Sethupathi I.P.S."
They took 83 Prints of the picture.
To avoid video piracy they had made special marks in each of the prints in certain frames of the film.
Later, it came to light that the same film was being screened in Television in Ambur.

63. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
A criminal case was registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film in T.V. Screen through V.C.R. (Regulation Act) 1984 and Cinematograph Act,
The investigation revealed that cassettes have emerged from print No. 64 of the aforesaid film.
Print No. 64 was delivered to the distributors M/s. Golden Pictures; Tirunelveli.
M/s Golden Pictures, Tirunelveli, in turn entrusted the same with M/s. Raj Cine Complex Private Limited Tuticorin for exhibition of the picture on .

64. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF VIDEO PIRACY
M/s Raj Cine Complex Private Limited is running three theatres under the name and style of Raj Mini Raj and Cine Raj.
A case in Crime No. 1 of 1994 was registered by the C.B.C.I.D. and the investigation revealed that the pirated video cassettes were available in the market in Palayamkottai, Ambur and Tiruchirappalli, etc
Held: It was also held that the further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. This Criminal Original Petition was allowed

65. Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc [No. 07 Civ. 2103]:
JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc [No. 07 Civ. 2103]:
Facts: Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming.
Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability .

66. Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
Held: The U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube.
The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA.
Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright.
The case was sent back to the District Court in New York to be tried.

67. JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc [586 F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Cal. 2008)]:
Facts: IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District.
IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22.
Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content.
IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

68. JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
Held:
Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files.
Video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users.
The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment, on the basis the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision.

69. Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios [464 U.S. 417 (1984)]:
JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios [464 U.S. 417 (1984)]:
In the famous Betamax Suit, during 1976 the Walt Disney Productions and Universal Studios were copyright owners of the film broadcast on television.
They filed suit which later on famously known as ‘Betamax Suit’ against the defendants Sony Corporation of America.
Facts: The Sony’s Ad-Agency, several of its dealers including a consumer who has allegedly used a Sony Betamax VCR to tape Disney and Universal Products off the air for his own use.

70. JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
US District Court Held: Individual’s off the air copying of a programme in his home for private and non-commercial use did not violate US Copyright Laws.
Appeal was preferred
US Court of Appeals: Reversed the District Court’s Decision and held that copying of programme for private use amounted to the violation of the rights of the copyright owners.

71. Sony filed Petition before US SC.
JUDICIAL APPROACH:International Judgments
Sony filed Petition before US SC.
US SC Held: the use of VCRs at home for recording programmes from the TV for viewing them later fall within the act of ‘fair use’ and therefore, there was no infringement of the copyrights of films and TV programmes producers.
The US Supreme Court’s 5:4 decision was a victory to the electronic industry in the US and it also amounted to a big blow to movie producers.
The dissenting judges, however, disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that home taping of programmes amounted to fair use.

72. 90% agreed they like to produce any kind of movie.
Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
90% agreed they like to produce any kind of movie.
90% admit that an average big Hindi film required unlimited budget while Marathi big movie requires about 3 to 4 crorers. Similarly, small budget Hindi film requires about 7 crores and Marathi requires about 70 Lakhs.
86.67% producers answered that a film requires about 70 to 100 crew members for a film.
90% respondents agree that they sell all the bundle of rights associated with a film.
90% producers agree that the video rights must be released atleast after six months from the date of its release because if released simultaneously alongwith the theatre print or online or satellite release may lead to commission video piracy.

73. Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
66.67% of the respondents have agreed some of the directors, producers and video rights owners themselves may be involved in video piracy menace.
90% of the producers agree that the amount of royalty charged for the release of video rights depends on the film casting, demand of the film, its quality, its gradation by the CBFC Board and the producers expectation of the returns from the business of his/her film.
100% of the respondents agree that the conditions agreed between the producers and the video rights holders during the release depends upon the mutual understanding between them.
86.67% of the respondents agree that there must be reasonable restrictions imposed on the buyers of the video rights in a film on account of the territory or duration of viewing the film released on video.

74. Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
100% of the respondents agree that whenever they receive any information of unauthorized selling, buying and renting of video CDs, DVDs, etc., they usually take action by initiating a police complaint and demand for compensation.
100% of the producers agreed that in a single feature film or a movie, there exist a bundle of copyrights such as – song (audio and video) rights, Satellite rights, territorial rights, video rights, music tune rights, etc.
All 15 (100%) of the respondents agree that they do issue licences to commercial places such as hotels, ships, video parlours, travelling carriers, luxury buses, etc. for showing films to the public.
98% of them strongly agree that the menace of video piracy is on the rise.

75. Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
100% of the respondents agree that due to video piracy there is a heavy economic loss to their business, loss of quality, creativity that has been invested in a film gets degraded, there is a loss to the entire team which was tirelessly involved in making the film.
86.67% agree that they cannot name any person who may be involved in committing video piracy. According to them they do not have any face to be recognized as it may consist of a big racket.
90.00% of the respondents agree that video piracy occurs mainly in Mumbai on a large scale as compared to the other big and small cities of Maharashtra State.

76. Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
90% of the respondents agree that it is due to popularity of the films, the original CDs and DVDs are infringed alongwith counterfeiting the inlay cards and cover pages, etc.
100% of the respondents strongly agree that the consumer prefer to buy pirated movie CDs and DVDs because of they are cheap and sometimes more than movie can be watched on a single DVD.
86.67% of the respondents believe that due to advent of new technology, many issues have emerged regarding jurisdiction, ownership, licencing and infringement of copyrighted material.
100% of the respondents agree that due to huge storage devices such as Portable Hard Disks, Pendrives, etc., which can be used to store pirated movies downloaded or copies from various sources such as internet movie downloading software like Bit Torrents, DVDrips, etc, the video piracy has become a unstoppable social menace.

77. Summary of Interviews conducted with the Producers of Hindi and Marathi Films and Video Rights Holders:
86.67% of the respondents agree that pirates do make theatre prints with the help of video cameras in collusion with theatre owners without any fear of being prosecuted.
66.67% of the respondents agree that the short term effect of video piracy is the loss of profits.
100% of the respondents believe that the long term of effect of video piracy on films are production of fewer films restricted to low budgets which ultimately results into production of poor quality of films.
100% of the respondents agree that the existing laws are unable to enforce copyright in films, therefore more stringent laws are needed to catch hold of the video pirates with the help of latest technology.
90% believe that the cable TV and the Dist TV are not a challenge to the producers. On the contrary these medias can be effectively used to popularize the movies so that the public can flock to the theatres to watch the movies.

78. Summary of Interviews with Legal Practitioners dealing with Infringement of Copyright especially video piracy cases:
Almost all the lawyers think that the producers are negligent on their part of not lodging timely complaint.
Sometimes it is the producers, distributor and exhibitors who are involved in the process of video piracy in order to make more money.
Even if by chance any complaint is filed against video piracy, the police do not take it seriously.

79. Summary of Interviews with Legal Practitioners dealing with Infringement of Copyright especially video piracy cases:
One of the legal practitioners Adv. Kadukar had shared his case under Video Piracy decided by the Civil Judge at Taluka of Chandgad as under.
The State of Maharashtra, through Police station, Chandgad v. Ismail Ibrahim Madar and another [Reg. Cri. Case No. 32/2009(Exh.39):
Facts: . In this case the investigation of video piracy case against the accused was not carried out with proper procedure prescribed in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
Hence the procedure adopted by the prosecution was illegal.
It was the contention of the defense lawyer that under such circumstances the charge alleged against the accused is not proved, hence accused are liable to be acquitted.

80. Summary of Interviews with Legal Practitioners dealing with Infringement of Copyright especially video piracy cases:
It appears that the procedure has not adopted by the investigating agency as contemplated U/s 64 of the copyright Act.
Held: by the court that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 63(a) of the Copyright Act vide Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

81. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
100% of the respondents watch movies.
60% of the respondents say that they watch any kind of movie.
39% of the respondents say that they prefer watching movies on weekends.
48% of the respondents agreed that they prefer watching a movie at Cinema Halls.
27.67% of the respondents say the they manage to gather information about the movies from the media.
32% of the respondents have answered that they have not visited any theatre to watch any movie or they don’t remember when they last visited any cinema hall.

82. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
40% of the respondents said that they rarely watch movies in theatres.
42% of the respondents have answered the questions by giving multiple excuses for not going to theatres to watch movies.
36.67% of the respondents said that they never or rather rarely hire or purchase video CDs/DVDs.
44% of the respondents have responded by saying that they have subscribed a normal cable TV connection in their home.

83. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
39.33% of the respondents agreed that they would like to watch movies sometimes on big screens.
48% of the respondents have agreed they prefer watching it on CD/DVD player.
56% respondents have agreed that they have CD or DVD player at home.
38.67% agreed that one of the most important advantages of watching movies at home instead of in theatres is that they have an easy access to movies on TV channels, VCDs / DVDs and internet

84. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
39.33% of the respondents have their own personal computers, about 30% of the respondents have their own laptops and 26.67% of the respondents have multi-media phones.
32% of the respondents agree that they play the movies on their audio-video devices with the VCDs and DVDs.
38% of the respondents agree that they subscribe internet services which are other than Tata Photon, BSNL and Reliance.
49.33% of the respondents agreed that they rarely buy pirated movies

85. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
38% of the respondents have accepted that they download pirated movies from the Tope Sites.
26% (78/300) of the respondents agree that they some kind of downloading software programmes other than specified in the question to download their pirated movies from the internet.
18% (54/300) of them agree that they use BiTorrent as their downloading tool.
39.33% of the respondents agree that they enjoy original movies better than the pirated one. While about 38% agree that they enjoy both pirated as well as original films.

86. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
26.67% of the respondents agree that they only see the year of publication which is printed on the cover of the VCD/DVD of a movie while buying them. Whereas about % of the respondents agree that they see only the price of the VCDs/DVDs while buying a movie.
50% of the respondents agree they insist on the original movie only.
70% of the respondents are unaware about the concept of Intellectual Property and only 30% of them have agreed that they know Intellectual Property.

87. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
52% of the respondents do not have any idea about The Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
18% of the respondents having knowledge about Copyright have rated their knowledge as satisfactory.
56% of the respondents do not have any idea about Video Piracy.
32% agree that buying pirated movies in an offence in the eyes of the law.
42% and about of the respondents agree that video piracy is an illegal as well as unethical activity respectively.

88. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
67% of the respondents agree that they do not have pay anything to the service provider or an uploader for downloading a movie from the internet.
56% agree that that the charges for downloading a movie from the internet is included in the monthly Internet Bill.
44.70% are unable to say anything about downloading movies without paying to the real owner amounts to an offence or not.
62.70% of the respondents are not in a position to say whether all the rights and interest in a movie vests in a film or video producers.

89. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
33% of the respondents agree that there is a loss causes due to buying or hiring pirated video films.
74% gree that their cable operator telecasts a separate movie channel for them.
23.33% agree that their cable TV operator telecasts just released movies whose video rights have not been released.
51% of the respondents do not subscribe for any pay-TV channels dedicated to movies.
54% of the respondents have given different figures other than mentioned in the questions.

90. Inferences from the Responses given by General Public from Mumbai, Pune and Kolhapur Cities (300)
52% respondents said that their cable operated never charges any separate rent for telecasting movie for them.
36.67% respondent agree that telecasting pirated movies on the cable TV channels amounts to video piracy punishable by law.
82% of the respondents have expressed their opinion that they do not support video piracy.
83% of respondents are not satisfied with the performance of the law enforcement authorities of fighting against the menace of video piracy.

91. Conclusion and Suggestions
Video is a global phenomena and India is not an exception.
Video piracy has indeed caused and is being causing a lot of damage to the producers of film, video right holders as the Government exchequer.
Inspite of various actions initiated by the law enforcement agencies and various amendments carried out to the existing laws , the menace of video piracy continues till date with immunity.
Similarly, the law enforcement authorities in India often do not treat video piracy as a serious offence.

92. Conclusion and Suggestions
Law enforcement agency is not fully equipped with the proper training and necessary machineries with latest technology.
Public buy or hire pirated CDs and DVDs without any fear of being prosecuted by the real owner because he himself doesn’t bother to file complaint against them.
The producers and directors of a movie spend a lot of money, labour and skill to come up with beautiful film and if the pirates rob them of their earnings with the contributory support from the consumers, the film-makers may suffer a lot of financial loss.
Therefore, alongwith the law enforcement agency, public must also support and fight against video piracy which is having ill effect on our Indian Economy.

93. Recommended Suggessions
We as the end users must say “NO” to pirated movies and stop buying them.
Instead we must encourage the producers and directors and all the agencies involved in making the movies by going to the cinema halls and watching the movies so that the producers and all the intermediaries and the Government also will get their shares.
The producers and the Government must see that more and more cinema halls are made available in the remotest area so that people can visit them and enjoy watching movies.

94. Recommended Suggessions
The law enforcement authorities must make sure that the activities involving video piracy also should be given much more importance as such activities may give rise to many anti- social, organized crimes and terrorist activities.
The legislature must introduce suitable amendments in the existing laws ie., Information Technology Act and Copyright Act so as to put more restraint on video piracy incidences.

95. Recommended Suggessions
The Government should also make sure that its law enforcement agencies are well-trained and equipped with high kills with the proper knowledge of latest technology to fight against the menace of video piracy.
The producers of the film should make sure that as soon as the movie is released he should also release it video rights immediately within one week to avoid video piracy.
The producers are also required to form an association of their own and see that they should conduct raids with the help of police and seize the illegal items and machineries. Timely action may discourage video pirates.

96. Recommended Suggessions
The producer must also take immediate court intervention whenever they receive information about any likelihood of piracy being committed of their films.
The producers should also see that prices of original movie VCDs/DVDs are kept reasonable so that consumers can afford them and enjoy original movie rather than watching the junk of pirated VCDs / DVDs.
The cinema hall owners should ensure that the theatres are updated with latest sound system (Dolby / Stereo) and they also should ensure that they are well maintained and kept clean. Once the public notices that these things are ensured, they may start flocking towards cinema halls to watch and enjoy movies on a big screen.

97. Recommended Suggessions
The Government should also see that the present perentage of sales tax levied on the tickets are reduced so as to give some relief to the theatre owners when they are already facing dearth of lack of theatre going audience.
It is the duty of each one of us to discourage piracy in any form be it video piracy or music piracy and help build the nation by helping our Government by restoring their revenue collection through cinema tickets.