ABSTRACT:

India is a country with an area of 3287263 Sq. Km. and a population of about 900 million
with 18 official languages and 32 dialects. Its vast geographical expanse and mind-boggling
socio-economic and cultural diversity make it easy for pirates to camouflage and hide their
activities. Yet, undaunted by the magnitude of the problem IMI (Indian Music Industry) has
been indefatigable in its efforts to tackle the problem of music piracy. There is hardly any
other institution that has been as monumental in curbing piracy and branding it as a crime that
is affected neither by language nor geographies. The last few years have seen a remarkable
rise in the number of successful raids carried out by IMI. With even more stringent law
enforcement and efficient intelligence networks, IMI has been vastly successful in extirpating
pirates across the length and breadth of the country. All this has been made possible under the
leadership of some of the best known names in law enforcement. Taking on the reigns of
IMI’s Anti-piracy Operations towards the end of 1996, it has been due to people like Mr. J.F.
Ribeiro that IMI has grown from a mere organization to an important, international player in
curbing piracy.

INTRODUCTION:
Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. In fact, it is a bundle of
rights including, inter alias, rights of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation
and translation of the work. There could be slight variations in the composition of the rights
depending on the work.

Subject to certain conditions, a fair deal for research, study, criticism, review and news
reporting, as well as use of works in library and schools and in the legislatures, is permitted
without specific permission of the copyright owners. In order to protect the interests of users,
some exemptions have been prescribed in respect of specific uses of works enjoying
copyright. Some of the exemptions are the uses of the work

i. For the purpose of research or private study,

ii. For criticism or review,
iii. For reporting current events,
1
 iv. In connection with judicial proceeding,
v. Performance by an amateur club or society if the performance is given to a non-paying
audience, and
vi. The making of sound recordings of literary, dramatic or musical works under certain
conditions.

SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS:

"SOUND RECORDING" means a recording of sounds from which sounds may be produced
regardless of the medium on which such recording is made or the method by which the
sounds are produced. A phonogram and a CD-ROM are sound recordings.
"CINEMATOGRAPH FILM" means any work of visual recording on any medium produced
through a process from which a moving image may be produced by any means and includes a
sound recording accompanying such visual recording and "cinematograph" shall be construed
as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography including video
films.

THE RIGHTS FOR MUSICAL WORK:

In the case of a musical work, copyright means the exclusive right

o To reproduce the work

o To issue copies of the work to the public
o To perform the work in public
o To communicate the work to the public
o To make cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work
o To make any translation of the work
o To make any adaptation of the work.

THE RIGHTS FOR SOUND RECORDING:

o To make any other sound recording embodying it

o To sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the sound recording
o To communicate the sound recording to the public.

2
The “RIGHT OF REPRODUCTION” commonly means that no person shall make one or
more copies of a work or of a substantial part of it in any material form including sound and
film recording without the permission of the copyright owner. The most common kind of
reproduction is printing an edition of a work. Reproduction occurs in storing of a work in the
computer memory.

“ADAPTATION” involves the preparation of a new work in the same or different form based
upon an already existing work. The Copyright Act defines the following acts as adaptations:

a) Conversion of a dramatic work into a non-dramatic work

b) Conversion of a literary or artistic work into a dramatic work
c) Re-arrangement of a literary or dramatic work
d) Depiction in a comic form or through pictures of a literary or dramatic work
e) Transcription of a musical work or any act involving re-arrangement or alteration of
an existing work.

The making of a cinematograph film of a literary or dramatic or musical work is also an

adaptation.

GUIDELINES REGARDING REGISTRATION OF A WORK

UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT:

Chapter VI of the Copyright Rules, 1956, as amended, sets out the procedure for the
registration of a work. Copies of the Act and Rules can be obtained from the Manager of
Publications, Publication Branch, Civil Lines, Delhi or his authorized dealers on payment.
The procedure for registration is as follows:

a. Application for registration is to be made on Form IV ( Including Statement of

Particulars and Statement of Further Particulars) as prescribed in the first schedule to
the Rules ;
b. Separate applications should be made for registration of each work;
c. Each application should be accompanied by the requisite fee prescribed in the second
schedule to the Rules ; and

3
 d. The applications should be signed by the applicant or the advocate in whose favour a
Vakalatnama or Power of Attorney has been executed. The Power of Attorney signed
by the party and accepted by the advocate should also be enclosed.

Each and every column of the Statement of Particulars and Statement of Further Particulars
should be replied specifically.

Both published and unpublished works can be registered. Copyright in works published
before 21st January, 1958, i.e., before the Copyright Act, 1957 came in force, can also be
registered, provided the works still enjoy copyright. Three copies of published work may be
sent along with the application. If the work to be registered is unpublished, a copy of the
manuscript has to be sent along with the application for affixing the stamp of the Copyright
Office in proof of the work having been registered. In case two copies of the manuscript are
sent, one copy of the same duly stamped will be returned, while the other will be retained, as
far as possible, in the Copyright Office for record and will be kept confidential. It would also
be open to the applicant to send only extracts from the unpublished work instead of the whole
manuscript and ask for the return of the extracts after being stamped with the seal of the
Copyright Office.

When a work has been registered as unpublished and subsequently it is published, the
applicant may apply for changes in particulars entered in the Register of Copyright in Form V
with prescribed fee.
If a person permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of a work to the
public, where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work,
unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication
to the public would be an infringement of copyright, he will be deemed to have committed an
offence under the Copyright Act.
In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name purporting to be that of the
author or the publisher appears on copies of the work as published, or, in the case of an
artistic work appeared on the work where it was made, the person whose name so appears or
appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be.

4
Form IV - Application for Registration of Copyright

To

The Registrar of Copyrights

Copyright Office

New Delhi - 110001.

Sir,

In accordance with Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), I hereby apply for registration
of Copyright and request you that entries may be made in the Register of Copyrights in the enclosed
Statement of Particulars sent herewith in triplicate.

I also send herewith completed the Statement of Further Particulars relating to the work.

(For Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic works only)

2. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Copyright Rules, 1958, I have sent by prepaid registered post
copies of this letter and of the enclosed Statement(s) to other parties concerned, as shown below:

Name and addresses of the parties Date of dispatch

See columns 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Statement of Particulars and the party referred in Col. 2 (e) of the
Statement of Further Particulars.)

3. The prescribed fee has been paid, as per details below:-

4. Communications on this subject may be addressed to: -

5. I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, no person, other than to whom a
notice has been sent to as per paragraph 2 above has any claim or interest or dispute to my copyright
of this work or to its use by me.

6. I hereby verify that the particulars given in this Form and in the Statement of Particulars and
Statement of Further Particulars are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and
nothing has been concealed there from.

Yours faithfully,

Signature by the applicant

List of enclosures:

Place:

Date:

5
Statement of Particulars
(To be sent in triplicate)

1. Registration No. (To be filled in by the Copyright Office)

2. Name, address & nationality of the Applicant

3. Nature of the Applicant’s interest in the Copyright of the work

4. Class and description of the work

5. Title of the work

6. Language of the work

7. Name, address & Nationality of the Author and if the author is deceased, the date of decease

8. Whether the work is published or unpublished

9. Year and Country of first publication (Name, address and nationality of the publisher)

10. Years and countries of subsequent publications if any, and name, addresses and nationalities of
the publishers

11. Names, address and nationalities of the owners of various rights comprising the copyright in the
work and the extent of rights held by each, together with the particulars of assignments and license, if
any

12. Names, addresses and nationalities of other persons if any, authorized to assign or license the
rights comprising the copyrights

13. If the work is ‘Artistic’ the location of the original work, including name and address and nationality
of the person in possession of the work, (in case of an architectural work, the year of completion of the
work should also be shown).

13A. If the work is an Artistic work which is used or is capable of being used in relation to any goods,
the application should include a certification from the Registrar of Trade Marks in terms of the proviso
to Sub-Section (i) of Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

14. Remarks, if any

Signature of the Applicant

Place:
Date:

6
Statement of Further Particulars

(To be sent in triplicate)

(For Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic works only)

1. Is the work to be registered

a) An original work?
b) A translation of a work in the public domain?
c) A translation of a work in which Copyright subsists?
d) An adaptation of a work in the public domain?
e) An adaptation of a work in which Copyright subsists?

2. If the work is a translation or adaptation of a work in which Copyright subsists:

a) Title of the original work

b) Language of the original work
c) Name, address and nationality of the author of the original work and if the author is deceased,
the date of decease
d) Name, address and nationality of the publisher, if any, of the original work
e) Particulars of the authorization for a translation or adaptation including the name, address and
nationality of the party authorizing:

3. Remarks
Signature

Place:
Date:

Instructions for filling up the Statement of Particulars annexed to Form IV for the Registration of
Copyrights

Col.3:- State whether the applicant is the author or publisher of the work or whether he/she is the
owner assignee or licensee of any right comprising the copyright in the work or whether he has any
other interest in the work.

Col.4:- State whether the work is "Literary work" or "Dramatic Work" or "Musical work" or "Computer
Software work" or "Artistic Work" or "Cinematograph Film" or "Sound Recording", [see sub- section (i)
of Section 13]. Describe in brief the nature of the work (i.e. Drama, Novel, Biography, Poems,
Lecturers Opera, Painting, Engraving, Photograph, Disco tapes, etc.)

Col.5 In regard to a work, a title must be given.

Col. 6 If the work is in more than one language, all the languages should be shown.

Col. 7 for the definition of Author see clause‘d’ of Section 2. Moreover, irrespective of the person who
gave the ideas or suggestions, the author is the person who has actually drawn or executed the work
in question.

Col. 8 for definition of Publication see Section 3 of the Act, and if the work is posthumous work, see
sub-section (2) of Section 24.

Col. 9 If a work is published simultaneously in more than one country, state particular of countries in
which it is published and the exact date of publication (and not merely the year of publication) in each
country. For meaning of simultaneous publication see section 5.

7
Col. 10 In case of subsequent publication, state briefly the changes, if any, made in the first
publication.

Col.11 For the rights comprising the Copyright, see Section 14. If the rights are owned separately by
different persons the rights of each person should be stated separately, including the extent of rights
held by each person. In the case of a ‘Cinematograph Film’ or ‘Sound Recording’ also state in full
particulars (viz. full names, addresses and nationalities) of the owners of Copyright of the work
recorded in the Sound Recording like the composers, lyricists, story writers, etc.

Col. 2 State the Particulars of the persons other than those mentioned in Col. 11, authorized to assign
or license the rights comprising the copyrights, if any.

Col.13 State where and with whom the original work is located. This information is required to be
supplied in case of artistic work as defined in Section 2 (c).

Col.13A In case an artistic work is used or is capable of being used in relation to any goods, a Search
Certificate from the Trade Marks Registry u/s 45 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended from time
to time, has to be procured, and enclosed in original with the application for registration of Copyright.

THE APPLICANTS/THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MAY VISIT COPYRIGHT OFFICE

BETWEEN 2.30 PM AND 4.00 PM ON ANY WORKING DAY.

Second schedule to the Copyright Rules, 1958 (As amended from time to time) enlisting
various fee payable under the Copyright Act, 1957.

For a licence to republish a Literary, Dramatic, Musical or Artistic work (Section Rs. 400/- per
31, 31-A and 32-A) work

Rs. 400/- per

For a licence to republish a sound recording (Section 31)
work

For an application for registration or copyright in a:

Rs. 50/- per

Literary, Dramatic, Musical or Artistic work
work

Provided that in respect of a Literary or Artistic work which is used or is capable Rs. 400/- per
of being used in relation to any goods (Section 45) work

For an application for change in particulars of copyright entered in the Register of

Copyrights in respect of a:-

Rs. 50/- per

Literary, Dramatic, Musical or Artistic work
work

Provided that in respect of a literary or Artistic work which is used or is capable Rs. 200/- per
of being used in relation to any goods (Section 45) work

8
PIRACY:
Piracy is the unauthorized duplication of an original recording for commercial gain without
the consent of the rights owner. The packaging of pirate copies is different from the original.
Pirate copies are often compilations, such as the "greatest hits" of a specific artist, or a
collection of a specific genre, such as dance tracks.

The problem of piracy has arisen with the rapid advance of technology. New techniques of
printing, recording and fixation of broadcast or recorded programmes have emerged, making
it easy for the pirates to carry on their illegal activities. Piracy is an illegal and criminal
activity.

Music Piracy basically refers to three kinds of illegal Activities:

1) Counterfeiting: This is the unauthorized copying of the sound as well as artwork,

trademark, label and packaging of the original recording. The aim is to mislead the consumer
into thinking that they are buying the genuine product.

2) Pirate Recordings: These are unauthorized duplications of music from legitimate

recordings for commercial gain. Pirated CDs or music cassettes may be compilations such as
'Top Ten', 'Bollywood Hits' or a combination of hit titles of different music companies. The
packing and presentation of a pirate copy does not usually resemble a legitimate commercial
release.

3) Bootlegging: This is recording, duplication and sale of a performance such as a live concert
or broadcast without the permission of the artist or the Record Company which may be
entitled to control the recording rights of the artists performances.

Piracy comes in several varieties:

1) End User Piracy:

- copying the same software onto more than one computer

- copying office software onto a home computer

- loaning your software to someone else so that the person can make a copy

- making a copy and selling the software to someone else

9
- selling old software

2) Reseller Piracy:

- an individual or company who takes one copy of software and deliberately reproduces it
with fake certificates so that those who purchase it believe it is being purchased from the
company which developed it

- many folks may have the same serial number

3) BBS/Internet Piracy:

- distribution of copyrighted software via the Internet or a bulletin board system

sites which are set up to distribute software have made arrangements with the software

- owners to make their software available

4) Trademark/Trade Name Infringement:

- improper use of a registered trademark

SUFFERERS OF PIRACY:

Piracy costs the Music Industry and the Government millions of rupees each year. Not only
does India rank among the top 10 countries affected by piracy, it loses an astounding sum of
nearly Rs 450 crore (Rs 4.5 billion) to pirated music. Apart from adding nothing to the
creative process, pirates evade payment of royalty, excise duty, sales tax and the promotion
and publicity costs.

-CONSUMERS suffer when they discover that they have bought a poor quality product, and
supported theft of intellectual property. Also due to poor quality of CDs, the CD player is also
affected.

- ARTISTS and other right holders suffer since pirate recordings do not earn them any
royalties. When revenue from top selling hits is lost to piracy, companies cannot afford to
invest in specialist areas and offer consumers a wider selection of music.

10
- GOVERNMENT suffers as pirates do not pay taxes. It is estimated that piracy results in loss
to the exchequer to the tune of some Rs. 190 millions in Sales Tax, Excise duty and Income
Tax, in 1997.

- PIRATES alone gain. When a pirated copy is sold, money goes to criminals, not to the
artists, other right owners, Music Companies or the Government.

SIZE OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN INDIA:

The estimation of the music industry size is a challenge, as the unit sales and the average
realization prices continue to be a closely guarded secret of the music companies.

The industry estimates approximately 15 crores of legitimate unit sales of music cassettes and
cds in the past year, with an average realization of Rs.40-45. This brings the size of the
industry to about Rs.670 crores (USD 149 million) . Over this , the share of royalties earned
by the music companies need to be added, the estimates of which were not available, and
hence have not been included.

Digital distribution along with the other growth drivers as detailed above will drive the
industry in the next five years. Piracy will continue to hamper the growth of the industry,
though measures from the Indian music industry will help curb some of this. On a
conservative basis, the music industry has been pegged to grow at 3% over the next five years
and is expected to touch Rs.777 crores by 2009.

11
MUSIC COPYRIGHT MYTHS:
Myth 1: It is legal to use any music for 7 seconds
Fact: No. Unlawful use of even a short excerpt from a song is enough to land you in a
copyright infringement case. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise, unless he is a
copyright attorney! Remember, there is nothing like free to use music… not for 30 seconds,
not for 7 seconds, not even for the first eight bars! You need a license to use music without
landing into trouble.

Myth 2: I bought a music CD, I can use the music on my website since I paid for it.
Fact: Wrong. You bought the CD… not the music! Buying a legitimate CD gives you the
right to play the music privately. You definitely need permission from the composer of the
music as well as the sound recording company to use the music on the CD as background
music for your website.

Myth 3: The composer is dead– his music is no longer under copyright.

Fact: Untrue. The copyright for a music composition lasts for approximately 70 years from
the death of the composer. It does not automatically expire with its creator. And even if the
composer is dead since a long time – like Mozart for example – you still don’t have the right
to use someone’s interpretation of their music without a license.

Myth 4: It’s for a non-profit organization, so I can use any music I want for free.
Fact: False. Your project (website, presentation, video… anything) may be non-profit, but
when it becomes available to other people, you are allowing them to hear music they didn’t
purchase. That is a breach of the copyright law, no matter if you are making money on the
project or not.

Myth 5: I can use this music for free because I found it on the Internet.
Fact: Absolutely not. All music found on the internet is under copyright. If you reproduce,
perform, or distribute musical compositions and sound recordings without the requisite
licensing, you are violating copyright law.

Myth 6: I can use music because the website did not carry a copyright notice.
Fact: Beginning March 1, 1989, it is no longer mandatory to display the copyright notice to
protect one’s intellectual property, in this case, music.

12
CASE STUDY FOR PIRACY OF MUSIC IN INDIA:

GULSHAN - PIRATE OR MESSIAH?

Indian film music lovers have always regarded the decades prior to the 1980s as the 'golden
era' of Hindi film music. During the 1980s, there was blatant and sub-standard copying of
international music. In the late 1980s, videocassettes became extremely popular among India's
upper class and upper middle-class families. As these people began watching the latest films
in their homes, video piracy became rampant.

Now it was the lower classes that could not afford to buy color television sets and video
players or recorders that went to the theatres. Hence, films were made to cater to their tastes.
These films were invariably medicore and the music was of very low quality.T-Series was
given credit for bringing the music industry out of this decline. Many critics praised Gulshan's
unerring instinct in picking up saleable music. Some of the films for which Gulshan procured
the music rights in the early 1980s went on to become huge successes. Almost all these
movies featured melodious music, bringing back the sounds of the pre-1980s era.

Gulshan's supporters held that till he came along, GCI and MIL had been virtually looting the
consumer by charging absurdly high prices for music cassettes. Gulshan had done the
customers a great service by making cheaper cassettes, and retailing them through small shops
all over the country, thus making cassettes affordable and easily available even to the
common man.

T-Series even took back unsold cassettes (to re-use the shells as well as tapes) so that these
small retailers would not suffer losses. Gulshan was also lauded for promoting fresh talent8
through the cover versions. (Interestingly enough, after Gulshan's death, the prices of
audiocassettes increased in the late 1990s.)

Noted media personality Pritish Nandy said, "He may have made some money through cover
versions and piracy. But what is more important is that he benefited listeners, expanded the
market and created a galaxy of new stars. He broke, in that sense, the existing monopolies and
drove hard and fiercely a sloth, decadent, exploitative market to make it boom. But, like all
swashbuckling pioneers, Gulshan Kumar got a bad name for doing it first."

13
The fact remains that while the music pirates made huge profits for themselves, they
inadvertently ended up benefiting the music industry as well. Since their entry in the 1970s,
the industry had more than quadrupled in size. Not surprising therefore, that some say the
Indian music industry 'owes its growth to the pirates.

T-SERIES & MUSIC PIRACY

Initially, Gulshan's cover versions featured only old Hindi film songs. Gulshan got unknown
singers to sing these as their rates were low and Gulshan was able to make good margins on
the overall deal. Soon, he began making cover versions of new movies as well. Though the
cassettes always made it clear in small print that these were not the original recordings, the
consumers were not always savvy enough to read the small print.

During the early 1990s, Gulshan released a number of albums featuring religious songs. These
were fairly successful. He even acted in, sang for and directed a few of the videos of such
songs. These were run on the state-owned television channel Doordarshan. T-Series also
began producing Hindi films. One of the company's first ventures, the musical 'Aashiqui,' was
a huge success. This was followed by many more movies, a majority of which flopped.
However, the music of these movies was a success in almost all the cases. The success of
'Bewafa Sanam,' one of the many mediocre T-Series movies starring Gulshan's actor-brother
Kishen Kumar, took the whole industry by surprise. Gulshan even invented the concept of the
'music bank' where tunes were stored till a movie or a record was identified to 'fit' them into.

Things were going on rather smoothly - till Gulshan released a cover version of what was
reportedly one of India's biggest blockbuster movie, 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun' in 1997,
violating the three-year waiting period stipulated by the Supreme Court. This time around, the
attack on GCI's profits was too strong to be ignored and the company filed a suit against T-
Series. In the same year, a few music industry players approached the former finance minister
V P Singh, demanding that Gulshan be punished for violating copyright laws and pirating
music. However, V P Singh reportedly dismissed them saying, "Don't come to me with your
hard luck stories. You've no marketing strategies so you haven't discovered the marketplace.
Gulshan has. And you want me to punish him for his entrepreneurial ability?"

As the 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun' case went to the courts, Gulshan was murdered. With

14
Gulshan's death began a period of uncertainty for the T-Series group. The music company
was not doing very well as Gulshan had stopped buying music rights from outside7 and the T-
Series' films had failed. The other businesses were all relatively new and not yet well
established. There were reports of infighting in the family regarding the control of the various
businesses. Saregama, Tips and Venus, who had emerged as the leading players in the Hindi
film music segment, had also ventured into film production. Though Saregama's movies did
not do well, quite a few Venus and Tips movies were huge successes.

The December 1998 Delhi High Court ruling in the 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun' case, which put
an end to the cover version recordings, was the biggest blow to T-Series. The High Court
order said that the makers of version recordings relied upon a special provision of the Indian
Copyright Act [S 52(1)(j)]. Taking advantage of this provision, the pirates claimed that
copyright owners of the compositions and lyrics were only entitled to a statutory license fee.
They also said that once the owners received the license fee, they had to allow the fee payers
to make sound recordings.

The Delhi High Court held that there was no provision for such automatic licensing and the
sound recordings could be made by third parties only after they had obtained permission from
the copyright owners. The Court held that under the Copyright Act, assignments and licenses
could only be made in writing. They had to be signed by the assignor/licensee. As GCI had
categorically refused to grant a license/assignment in favor of T-Series and had also returned
the cheque for the royalty amount sent by T-Series, it was able to win the case.

CASE STUDY FOR PIRACY OF MUSIC IN ABROAD:

Supreme Court Gets RIAA Copyright Case

A case testing the meaning of the so-called “innocent infringer’s” defense to the Copyright
Act’s minimum $750-per-music-track fine has landed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case the justices were asked to review Wednesday concerns a federal appeals court’s
February decision ordering a university student to pay the Recording Industry Association of
America $27,750 ($750 a track) for file sharing 37 songs when she was a high school
cheerleader. That decision reversed a Texas federal judge who had ordered defendant
Whitney Harper to pay $7,400 ($200 per song).

15
The lower court, without a trial, had granted her the innocent infringer’s exemption to the
Copyright Act’s minimum fine, because the teen claimed she didn’t know she was violating
copyrights. She said she thought file sharing was akin to internet radio streaming.

The appeals court, however, said she was not eligible for such a defense, even though she was
between 14 and 16 years old when the infringing activity occurred on LimeWire. The reason,
the court concluded, is that the Copyright Act precludes such a defense if the legitimate CDs
of the music in question carry copyright notices.“Harper cannot rely on her purported legal
naivety,” the New Orleans–based appeals court ruled, 3-0.But attorneys for Harper told the
justices that she should get the benefit of the $200 innocent-infringer fine, because the digital
files in question contained no copyright notice.” Only notice on the copy that the infringer
used to infringe tends to disprove the infringer’s innocence,” attorney Kiwi Camara told the
high court in a petition. Hollywood attorney and copyright blogger Ben Sheffner suggested
the justices would not likely buy Camara’s legal theory, because it would give copyright
scofflaws an easy pass on being held liable. The justices have the option of taking the case
and issuing a ruling, or declining to hear it altogether.

A & M Records vs. Napster (2001)

This is one of the most famous cases of copyright infringement related to the music industry.
As peer to peer file sharing increased, Napster started a website. This website offered
downloads of songs of all genre – new and old. You may know someone who used it.

A & M Records brought in a joint copyright infringement case which accused Napster of
stealing music and making it available to people worldwide. Before closing the site in 2002,
Napster had to settle USD26 million to different recording companies and songwriters. It
could have even more if Napster had not apologized and folded the site.

Several websites still thrive on offering free music to people who can download it at no cost.
As mentioned in our article on "Internet Ethics and Copyright Laws", the music industry faces
most copyright infringement cases. The Napster case, though an example of the
consequences, still does not act as a deterrent for other music websites that offer free music
downloads.

16
We hope these famous copyright infringement cases have clarified what is considered
copyright violation to some extent. If you still have any questions, please free to contact us
using the comments facility.

CONCLUSION:

The problem of piracy has arisen with the rapid advance of technology. New techniques of
printing, recording and fixation of broadcast or recorded programmes have emerged, making
it easy for the pirates to carry on their illegal activities. Piracy is an illegal and criminal
activity. IMI-Indian Music Industry has set up its internet Anti-piracy team in the year 2000,
headed by Mr. Prem Kumar (premkumar@indianmi.org) which has been closely working
with IFPI to counter piracy. In the last three years, the IMI managed to close Five Hundred
sites. Most sites are based on servers in the USA.IMI is contemplating action against these
servers and has sent has notices to them in Nov 2004, which resulted in the immediate closure
of 90% of those sites. IMI too has been focusing on Websites involved in streaming and
downloading Indian music.

All this has been made possible under the leadership of some of the best known names in law
enforcement. Taking on the reigns of IMI’s Anti-piracy Operations towards the end of 1996,
it has been due to people like Mr. J.F. Ribeiro that IMI has grown from a mere organization to
an important, international player in curbing piracy. Formerly Commissioner of Police
Mumbai, Director General of Police Punjab and Indian Ambassador to Romania, Mr. J.F.
Ribeiro has vastly improved and adapted the entire strategic, law-enforcement and
intelligence platform IMI works on to tackle the new-age, technology-savvy pirate world. The
functions of these anti-piracy teams essentially entail:

• Identifying units manufacturing pirated audio cassettes and compact discs and also
identifying retailers and wholesalers of pirated recordings
• Assisting Law Enforcement authorities to conduct raids on those violating Copyright
Law.
• Helping in the identification of pirated cassettes & CDs.
• Providing documentation needed in the course of investigations along with necessary
evidence, witnesses etc. for the successful completion of the case.

17
REFERENCES:
1) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/innocent-infringer-riaa/

2) http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/articles/74022.aspx

3) http://www.indianmi.org/index.htm

4) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/copyright/register.htm

5) http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/music-copyright-myths/

18