[Reader-list] video piracy case

[zamrooda]

The Indian Copyright Act :
A video film cannot be published until the following particulars are 
displayed on the  video cassette or other container thereof:

1 if the work is a cinematographic film required to be certified for 
exhibition under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, a copy of the 
certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification under section 5A of 
the Act in respect of such work.
2 The name and address of the person who has made the video film and a 
declaration by him that he has obtained the necessary license or consent from 
the owner of the copyright in such work for making such video film and
the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work.



The Supreme Court in a significant judgement on "infringement of copyright' 
in a "video piracy case" convicted and sentenced an owner of a video library 
in Tenali (Andhra Pradesh) to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0,000 for offence under 
Section 68 A of the Copyright Act read with Section 52 A of the Act.

According to the findings of the courts below (namely, the "trial court' and 
the District and Sessions Court, Guntur) ? N. Venkataramanan 
(respondent-owner of the video library), was exhibiting the cinematograph 
films in his "Video City" for hire or sale of the cassettes to the public 
which did not contain the particulars envisaged under Section 32 A of the 
Act, the Bench noted.

Section 52A deals with particulars like, a copy of the certificate granted by 
the Board of Film Certification under section 5A of the Cinematograph Act in 
the case of a 'cinematograph film" (including a "video tape"). the name and 
address of the person who has made the video film and a "declaration" that he 
had obtained necessary licence or consent from the owner of the copyright in 
such work for making such video film etc and the name and address of the 
owner of the copyright of such work ? to be included in "sound recordings" 
and 'video films".

Section 68A provides penalty for contravention of Section 52A of the Act.

The Bench consisting of Mr. justice K. Ramaswamy and Mr. Justice G B 
Pattanaik, set aside a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitting 
the respondent.

The High Court held that unless the owner (of a video film or video cassette 
etc) was identified and gave evidence that he had a copyright of the video 
films concerned, there was no offence made out under relevant provisions of 
the Copyright Act.

The apex court, on an analysis of the provisions and scheme of the Copyright 
Act, as amended, in 1954, noted that the amending provisions were introduced 
in the Act "to prevent piracy which became a global problem due to rapid 
advances in technology and to punish the pirates" in the interest of 
protecting copyrights.

The Bench, in allowing an appeal from the State against the judgement of the 
High Court observed that on the facts and circumstances of the case "it would 
be unnecessary for the prosecution to track on and trace out the owner of the 
copyright to come and adduce evidence of infringement of copyright."

The absence thereof does not constitute lack of essential element of 
infringement of copyright and "if the particulars on video films etc as 
mandated under Section 52A do not find place, it would be infringement of 
copyright," the Bench pointed out.

The Court in imposing a sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000 on the respondent, 
modified a sentence of imprisonment of six months and imposition of fine of 
Rs 3000 as awarded first, by the trial court and later, by the District and 
Sessions Court (first appellate court),

In default (of payment of sentence of fine of Rs, 10,000), the respondent 
should undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the Bench directed and 
ordered that "even if he does not pay the fine and undergoes the sentence, 
the State is at liberty to recover the fine from the respondent."