TOPIC: COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT IN CYBERSPACE AND

DIGITAL RIGHT MANAGEMENT

Final project submitted in fulfilment of the course CYBER LAW, 9th
SEMESTER during the academic year
2021-2022

SUBMITTED BY,
ADITYA BHARDWAJ
B.A.LLB, ROLL NO. 1705

SUBMITTED TO,
Mr. KUMAR GAURAV
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(LAW)

September, 2021
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,
MEETHAPUR, PATNA-800001
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN CYBERSPACE AND DIGITAL RIGHT
MANAGEMENT” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, Patna is an
authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Mr. Kumar Gaurav. I have
not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for
the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

ADITYA BHARDWAJ

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

21/09/2021

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………..…….4

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY………………………………………….………5

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY….……………………………………….……..5

4. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...…………6

5. RIGHTS OF AUTHORS UNDER COPYRIGHT REGIME IN INDIA ………….7

6. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES..……...……..…..….………8

7. FAIR DEALING AS DEFENSE…….…..………………………………………...9

8. LANDMARK CASES………………………………..…………………..………10

9. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT…………………………………….……..13

10. FAIR DEALING AND ANTI CIRCUMVENTION IN INDIA…..………………14

11. CONCLUSION………………………………..………….……………………….16

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………...……………….…………………….17

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SINCERE GRATITUDE TO MY PROFESSOR MR. KUMAR GAURAV

FOR PROVIDING HER INVALUABLE GUIDANCE, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE

COURSE OF THE PROJECT TITLED “CONTEXTUAL APPROACH OF SECONDARY MARKET” WHICH

ENRICHED ME WITH INVALUABLE KNOWLEDGE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS SINCERE

GRATITUDE TO THE OFFICIALS AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY WHO RENDERED

THEIR HELP IN COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK MY PARENTS AND

FRIENDS WHO HAVE HELPED ME WITH THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND GUIDANCE. LAST BUT NOT THE

LEAST I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MY CLASSMATES WHO HAVE HELPED ME IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

Moreover, thanks to all those who helped me in any way be it words, presence,
Encouragement or blessings...

ADITYA BHARDWAJ
9TH Semester

B.A.LLB

4|Page
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the researcher in doing the research work is to highlight the status of copyright
infringement in cyberspace in Indian context and also to point out the digital rights
management.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher would like to follow the doctrinal method of data collection. For it the researcher
has made extensive use of the internet sources.

SOURCES OF DATA
For this study, both primary and secondary sources are utilized. In Primary sources researcher
has relied upon the landmark judgements, bare acts and books. And in the secondary sources
the researcher has made use of newspapers, journals, books.

5|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The growth of Information Technology has led to proliferation of e-businesses due to its cost
effectiveness, accessibility, convenience and vast user base. The global nature of internet has
provided immense visibility to start up enterprises and medium size businesses on the internet
to efficaciously showcase its products and services . The touchscreen age today knows very
well the importance of software, multimedia, trademarks, artwork and icons. Mobile phones
have become smartphones and computers are now tablets, diminishing the utility differences
in the two gadgets as a precursor to converging technologies.

While the digital age has its multiple advantages, the flipside is that the ease of availability of
information online and ease of duplicating it alongwith anonymity pose a continuous threat
to the protection of Intellectual property rights including copyrights on the internet.

Intellectual property infringements in cyberspace may comprise of any unauthorised use or

copying of trademarks, service marks protected by (Trademark Act, 1999), or original music
, films, art work, software ,multimedia or literary matter ( protected by the Copyright Act,
1957). The unique matrix of the cyberspace has produced different categories of infringements
including Deep linking, Framing, piracy of music, software, video, other Digital Copyrights
infringements.There are international bodies such as WIPO that have made important
initiatives to bring harmonization in copyright regimes across various jurisdictions.One
important treaty is the WIPO copyright treaty which entered force on 6th march 2002. Although
India is not a signatory to the Treaty ,India is a party to the Berne Convention that protects
copyrights in various works across many countries that are its member signatories.
Also,WTO initiatives led to creation of the TRIPS Agreement , another instrument that has
made several strides in protection of copyrights apart from other forms of intellectual property
rights . India is a signatory of the TRIPS Agreement.

6|Page
 RIGHTS OF AUTHORS UNDER COPYRIGHT REGIME IN INDIA
In India, Copyright exists in source code of a computer program.1 Computer software is
protected as literary work and so are computer databases as per Section 2(o) of Copyright Act,
19572. Thus, an original database is also protected by copyright.3
According to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 an author of a work has the sole and
exclusive right to enjoy and exploit several rights conferred by the Act for literary , dramatic,
musical or artistic work, cinematographic film and sound recording. Rights mentioned under
Section 14 include the right to reproduce the work, to issue its copies, perform or communicate
work in public4 , make adaptations, translations, selling or rental rights in respect of different
categories of work. Term of copyright in published literary , dramatic, musical and artistic
works is lifetime of author and sixty years from beginning of calendar year next following
year in which author dies. Same is the case of cinematographic film and sound recording .
Multimedia works by their nature are works combining different works, such as text, sound,
images, and moving images. It becomes perplexing which provisions should apply to a
multimedia work as it may be an amalgamation of distinct works such as sound recording,
film,artistic work and literary work or software wherein separate copyrights vest in the author
conferring differing rights with respect to a category of work as per Copyright Act 5. For
example, the rights conferred on an author in a literary work differ from those in a
cinematographic film. On one hand there is no rental right in a literary work, on the other such
a right exists for cinematographic film.6 In my view,the correct interpretation is that multimedia
work is indeed a combination of separate works in which different copyrights vest in
author(s).To my mind it cannot in all cases be treated as one work which is only a computer
programme itself as certain academicians hold.

1
Ibcos Computer v Barclays 1994 FSR 275.
2
Article 10(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides
copyright protection to computer programmes
3
British Horseracing Board vs William hill 2001 RPC 612. See Section 13(1)(a) copyright Act
4
See Section 2(ff) includes online communication or communication using electronic means.
5
See section 13 of copyright Act and see 2(ff) substituted definition of ‘communication to public’ which
includes electronic communication.thus rights conferred by copyright on author of a work apply equally in
offline and online versions.
6
The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 inserted in Section 14 © , incase of artistic work , to reproduce would
also include storing of work in any medium by electronic or other means. Similar inclusion was made in respect
of cinematographic films in Section 14(d).
7|Page
 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES
Where copyright is infringed, owner of copyright is entitled to sue for remedies including
injunction, damages, profit of accounts and delivery up of infringing goods7. Section 51 states
copyright in a work is considered infringed when a person without a license from owner or
registrar of copyrights or contravening conditions of a license does anything the exclusive right
to do which is the right of the owner as per the Act or permits for profit a place to be used for
communication of work to public where such communication constitutes infringement of
copyright in the work unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe such
communication will be infringement of copyright.
It also amounts to an infringement where a person makes for sale or hire or displays or offers
for sale , or distributes for trade or to prejudicially affect the owner of copyright or by way of
trade exhibit in public or import into India infringing copies of work( excluding one copy for
personal use of importer).
As registration is not compulsory , suits for infringement can be filed evenm if plaintiff has
secured no registration of the work.8. Civil remedies available to owner of copyright are also
available to exclusive licensee.9 Electronic contracts are considered legally valid in most
jurisdictions such as India and electronic licensing or assignment is also legally valid.10

7
Section 55(1) of copyright Act, 1957
8
JN Bagga v Air ltd AIR 1969 Bom 302
9
Section 54(a)
10
See Section 10 A of IT Act,2000
8|Page
 FAIR DEALING AS A DEFENSE
Section 52(a) provides for exceptions to infringement termed as “ Fair dealing”.Fair dealing
with literary , dramatic , musicasl or artistic work ( not being a computer program) for purpose
of private use, including research , criticism, review, and as per Section 52 (b) for purpose of
reporting current events in a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, or by broadcasting or
cinematographic film or by means of photographs.As per Section 62 of Copyright Act, a suit
or civil proceeding will be filed for infringement of copyright in district court having
jurisdiction to hear the case. The jurisdiction under CPC will include place of residence where
plaintiff resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Section 63 of the
Copyright Act provides the punishment for offence of copyright infringement. Any person who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work or any other right
conferred by the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to three years and fine which shall not be less than Rs.
50,000 but may extend to 2 lacs. On second and subsequent conviction imprisonment is for a
term not less than one year but which may extend to three years and fine which will not be less
than one lac but may extend to 2 lacs. Punishment may be reduced if infringements are not
made for commercial gain. As per Section 63 B , knowing use of infringing copy of a computer
programme is punishable with imprisonment for term not less than 7 days but may extend to
three years and fine not less than Rs. 50,000 but which may extend to Rs. 2lacs. Punishment
may be reduced if infringements are not made for profit or gain. Section 69 provides that if an
offence is committed by a company then every person who at the time offence was committed
was in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company shall be deemed guilty
of such offence and liable for punishment unless if he proves offence was committed without
his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent commission of such offence11.

11
Like a company, a firm is also liable under Section 69 of copyright Act- J.N Bagga v All India Reporter ltd AIR
1969 Bom 02.
9|Page
 LANDMARK CASES
One of the most cited lawsuits worldwide for digital copyright infringements is of the Napster
Case12, whereby the plaintiff was sued by the defendants, for P2P file sharing. In this case,
Napster provided software, whereby the user can share media files (MP3 Files) stored in his
computer to other user of Napster. Since the filing of the Napster Inc case, the music companies
have been seeking USD 1, 00,000 for each copyright-protected song downloaded using
Napster.There was a settlement between the parties, whereby Napster had to give a third of all
future profits to the settling parties, and Napster Inc. was shut down in 2000.
In Sega Enterprises v Maphia 13, the plaintiff manufactured video games which could only be
played on game consoles manufactured by plaintiff. The defendant managed a BBS that
enabled users to upload Sega games to his BBS which others could then download. The court
took the view that defendant infringed plaintiff’s copyright as it caused or materially
contributed to the infringement.
In Kelly v Arriba SoftCorp 14 Leslie Kelly’s copyrighted pictures were displayed by a search
engine that not only produced thumbnails but also large size pictures in its search results. This
was held by the court to be an unauthorized reproduction of plaintiff’s pictures that directly
infringed copyright of the plaintiff. While creating only thumbnails could be justified as fairuse
, but downloading from search engine result full size image amounted to an infringement.
Recent example of infringement in electronic publishing industry is that of the class action
lawsuit against Google and its online library feature , wherein Google settled royalty dispute
with authors and publishers of books available in its online library for free access which
allowed free downloading which directly infringed their copyrights .15
In a recent Indian case, Gramaphone company of India vs Super cassette Industries 16 ltd,
the court took the view that plaintiff had infringed the copyright of plaintiff in sound
recordings , wherein a remix version of a song was being sold by defendant on the internet or
as mobile tune .The court observed that right of a copyright holder in a recording version to
sell , give on hire or offer for sale or hire to public or distribute is not curtailed by the format
in which it may be sold online.

12
A&M Records; Inc. v. Napster; Inc. 2000 WL 573136, I (N.D. cal 2000)
13
857 F Supp 679 (N.D Cal 1994)
14
280 F 3d 934(9th Cir 2002)
15
“Authors,Publishers and Google Reach landmark settlement” ,
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20081027_booksearchagreement.html
16
2010 (44) PTC 541
10 | P a g e
In Eastern Book Company Limited v D. B Modak17 ,the appellants were engaged in business of
printing judgements of the Supreme Court of India through its publication ‘Supreme Court
Cases’. These judgements would be copyedited by them to make these more user friendly by
putting cross references, inputs, paragraph numbers, formatting and headnotes. Appellants
contended that since creation of headnotes required considerable skill, labour and time and
expense, the work is an original literary work and the appellants alone had exclusive rights to
make hard copies or electronic copies of the publications under Section 14 of the Copyright
Act, 1957.It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent had produced a software called
Grand Jurix by scanning, copying and reproducing portions of the publication of the Appellant
which constituted infringement of copyright as per Section 51 of the Copyright Act.When
appellants prayer for interim injunction was rejected by the high court, the matter was appealed
to division bench that directed the respondents to sell their software without the headnotes or
text of appellants. In contempt petitions filed against respondent for non compliance of this
order , the Division bench held that so far the footnotes and headnotes are concerned these are
protected by copyright but it did not grant injunction against sale of the copyedited judgements
as a whole.
Before the Supreme Court, the issues that were considered were what is the standard of
originality in the copyedited judgments and what will give such derivative work protection of
copyright? Another issue was whether the whole of copyedited judgement deserves protection
of copyright or any part thereof such as headnotes?
The Supreme court relied on the CCH Canadian ltd vs Law Society of Upper Canada (2004)
1 SCR 339 ( Canada) and observed that derivative work must have some sufficient
distinguishable quality or features which the original work does not possess. Only trivial inputs
will not satisfy the test of copyright of an author.Novelty or innovation is not the requirement
of copyright but it does require minimum degree of creativity. The Court observed that
copyedited texts of judgements of appellant deserved protection of copyright and partly
allowed the appeals directing that though respondents may sell their CDs with their own
editorial content and headnotes during pending of the matter in high court but it can do so
without using the footnotes, headnotes, editorial comments and inputs of the appellants .
In Microsoft corporation v Yogesh popat18, the Delhi High Court dealt with a copyright
infringement case and awarded compensation of Rs 23.62 lacs to Microsoft Corporation against

17
(2008) 1 SCC 1
18
2005 (118)DLT 580, followed in Adobe Systems inc v K.Khanna 2009 (5) AS ( Delhi) 954.
11 | P a g e
M/s Compton Computers Private ltd and its directors for uploading pirated software of
Microsoft in computers the company sold after assembling parts .

12 | P a g e
 Digital Rights Management
World Copyright Treaty and WPPT are two treaties of WIPO that explain law of anti
circumvention and digital rights management19. DRM means technologies used by copyright
owners to control use of their digital works and restrictions placed thereon. Although India is
not a signatory to these treaties it provides for reverse engineering only in certain limited
circumstances. In the U.S, Content Scramble System was developed which used encryption to
prevent infringement of copyright in films or DVDs. Later, a Norwegian teenager developed
De CSS by reverse engineering that enabled DVD users to copy DVD files on the computer.The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act was subsequently enacted to provide legal protection
measures against circumvention of technical methods adopted by copyright owners to preserve
their rights . ( Section 1201 (a) ( 2)of DMCA Act.)It also provides a safe harbor for reverse
engineering in case where circumvention is required for interoperability reasons.

19
Article 11 and 12of WCT and Article 18 and 19 of WPPT protects authors that employ technological means to
protect copyright in their works and prohibit unauthorized tampering or distribution or infringement by
circumvention of technological measures .
13 | P a g e
 FAIR DEALING AND ANTI CIRCUMVENTION IN INDIA
Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act as amended by the Copyright Amendment Act 2012
provides the position of law in India as regards fair dealing as a defence and explains
circumstances where reverse engineering could be classified as fair use.A fair dealing with any
work , not being a computer programme for purposes of private or personal use, including
research, criticism or review whether of that work or any other work , reporting of current
events and current affairs , including reporting of a lecture delivered in public is not an
infringement of the work. Explanation to Section 52 (a) provides that storing of any work in
electronic medium for purposes mentioned in the said clause including incidental storage
which is not itself an infringing copy will not constitute infringement. This justifies as to why
cache would be put under fair use.
Section 52 (aa) provides making of copies or adaptation of computer programme by lawful
possessor of copy to use computer programme for purpose it was supplied or for maintaining
back up. Section 52(ab) allows doing of acts necessary for achieving interoperability with
other programmes if such information is not readily available . Section 52 (ac) states it is fair
dealing to test functioning of a computer programme to determine principles that underlie
elements of the programme while performing such acts necessary for which role programme
was supplied , As per Section 52 (ad) making of copies or adaptation of computer programme
from a legal copy for non commercial personal use is also fair use.
An important insertion that protects internet service providers under fair dealing exceptions is
explained in Section 52(1)(b) ,that is , the transient or incidental storage of a work or
performance purely in technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the
public. It is pertinent to note that Section 52(1) (c) provides transient or incidental storage of a
work or performance for purpose of providing electronic links , access or integration where
such links, access or integration is not been expressly prohibited by the right holder , is also
fair use unless the person was aware or had reasonable ground to believe such storage is of an
infringing copy . The Section has a proviso whereby when a person storing copy receives a
complaint from copyright owner complaining such incidental or transient storage is an
infringement , such person ought to deactivate access for a period of 21 days or till such time
as competent court orders .
Further,in order to protect technological measures employed by authors to protect their rights,
Section 65A has been introduced by copyright Amendment Act 2012 which provides that if
any person circumvents such technological method with intention to infringing rights , he
14 | P a g e
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to
fine.There are certain exclusions in this Section such as conducting lawful investigation,
security check with authorization from owner,operator, for encryption research using lawful
copy, for identification or surveillance of a user, and for acts done to protect national security.
Section 65B introduced by Copyright amendment Act 2012 further provides that any person
who knowingly removes or alters any rights management information without authority or
distributes , imports for distribution , broadcasts or communicates to public without authority
copies of any work or performance knowing that electronic rights management information has
been removed or altered without authority shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. Civil remedies are also available incase
rights management information has been tampered with . These provisions are of immense
value to electronic publishing industry, gaming industry where authors are using DRMs to
protect reverse engineering or circumvention of technological measures they opt to protect their
copyrights from infringement. Some known techniques in use are namely, encryption,
electronic signature, or digital watermarking or pay per view system, electronic software
distribution.
In Syed Asifuddin and ors v TheState of Andhra Pradesh & Anr 20, the Tata indicom employees
were arrested on charges of hacking a computer source code under Section 65 of the IT
Act,2000 for altering the electronic 32 bit number (ESN) programmed into cellphones that were
to be exclusively used only on Reliance infocomm’s service network.The court observed that
such tampering of code is punishable offence under Section 65 of IT Act. The court observed
that in view of Section 2(o),(ffc) section 13 and 14 computer programme is a literary work
protected by copyright and as per Section 63 any infringement of computer programme is
punishable. However , the court observed that this issue will be decided by the trial court after
evidence is led before trial court. I am of the view that such tampering will not be considered
fair use under Section52 of copyright Act 1957 as it was not reverse engineered for any of
exceptions mentioned in Section 65A of the Copyright Amendment Act,2012.

20
2005 CRLJ 4314
15 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

With the passage of the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 the copyright regime in India
strengthens statutory protection available to authors to safeguard their rights both in offline and
online world. At the same time it explains the fair dealing exceptions to copyright with much
lucidity. New hybrid digital works such as multimedia will bring forth newer issues as
technology develops and new laws or clarification of existing laws will be required to address
new issues in protection of copyrights in the dynamic digital world.

16 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

• Astt Narayan - LK Thakur, 'Internet Marketing E-Commerce and Cyber Laws'

AuthorsPress, Delhi, 2000.
• Chopra Deepti and Keith Merill, 'Cyber Cops, Cyber Criminals and the Internet:
I.K.International Vwt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2002.
• Dr Gandhi; K.P.C, 'Introduction to computer related crimes.' CBI Bulletin, Delhi.
• Dr. Choubey, R.K, 'An Introduction to cyber crime & cyber law.' ed2008, Kama!
LawHouse, Kolkata, 2009.
• Dr. Singh Y.K., 'Cyber Crime and Law.' Shree Publishers & Distributors, New
Delhi.

Articles:
• Amn Kumar Gupta, 'Cyber Crime and Jurisdictional problem.' CBI Bulletin.
June-December 2006.
• 'Cyber crime in India.' Criminal Law Journal. June 2007.
• Dr Anita Verma, 'Cyber Pornography.' Army Institute of Law Journal Vol.-1, 2007.
• Dr. Gurbax Singh Karkara & Dr. S.K. Shanna, 'Law of Cyber Crime in India.'
Journalof The Legal Studies. Vol. 29, 1998-1999.
• Girish Kathpalia, 'Cyber Crimes-Offences under Infomiation Technology Act,
2000.'Delhi Judicial Academy Journal. Vol. 2(2), 2003.

Websites:
http://www.mit.gov.in
http://www.legalser\dceindia.com
http://www.cs.georgetown.edu
http://www.delhicourts.nic.in
http://www.legalinfo.com/content/criminal-
law/

17 | P a g e