ACIPR Logo

Alliance Center for
Intellectual Property Rights


STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. V. MOVIESTRUNK.COM & ORS: DEMYSTIFYING DIGITAL PIRACYROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PROTECTION OF FOLKLORE

August 1, 2023

*Ms. Anushka Rao

Facts

The present case revolves around the infringement of exclusive rights and copyright via digital piracy. The act of unlawfully copying and reselling digital media, such as music, video, art, etc., is known as digital piracy.

The case lays a major emphasis on the factors laid down by the court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337x.To and Ors. in order to determine whether a particular website is liable to be declared as ‘rogue’ and whether such website can be stopped from operating.

The plaintiff, Star India Pvt. Ltd. operated as a film production and distribution company in India. The present case was regarding the film “Mission Mangal” which was scheduled for release on 15 August 2019. The plaintiff filed a case against 80 defendants which included websites, registrars of websites, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Based on the investigation conducted by a third-party investigator, the plaintiff contended that the copies of the film were made available to the public for viewing and/or downloading without the authorization of the plaintiff, hence infringing the exclusive rights granted to it under Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Act).

The case also highlighted the quandary of such websites’ anonymity, making it difficult to identify and determine solutions effectively.

The evidence provided in this case was through screenshot(s), WHOIS details, and notices issued to the websites in question. WHOIS pronounced as ‘who is, is a query and response protocol that keeps track of a domain name, an IP address block, as well as a wider range of information.

No response was given to the notice issued to the defendants to take down infringing and pirated media from the websites.

Despite being served with the summons, defendants nos. 1 to 67 failed to show up in court or submit their written statements.

Issues

  • Whether the defendants' websites were rogue websites?
  • Whether the defendant websites were liable for infringing the exclusive rights and copyrights?
    • Whether an injunction as relief can be used to block rogue websites?

The Reasoning of the Court

The Delhi High Court discussed Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. highlighting the nuance of an uncontested suit of such nature where the defendant(s) cannot be identified, or the defendant(s) does not appear in court. In the present case, the defendants didn’t appear even after the issuance of the summons. In the Satya Infrastructure Ltd. case, it was held that summary disposal on the basis of plaint’s content, backed by the statement of fact and declaration made in accordance with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was adequate. Additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief makes the verification of plaint and affidavits redundant. In the present case, Defendant Nos. 1 to 67 were, therefore, set ex parte.

The High Court also relied on the factors outlined in the UTV Software case to determine whether a website is liable to be categorized as a “rogue website” and whether such a rogue website can be subject to injunction accordingly. The factors were as follows:

  • The primary intention of the website
  • Whether the website is committing infringement
  • Whether the website is facilitating copyright infringement
  • Obviousness of the infringement
  • Obviousness of the facilitation of infringement
  • Whether the registrant or the user is identifiable
  • Whether there has been a change in the working of the website after the issuance of notices contending copyright infringement
  • Whether the website's owner or operator exhibits a general disdain for copyright
  • Whether any court in another nation or territory has issued orders prohibiting access to the internet location due to or connected to copyright infringement
  • Whether the website offers recommendations or instructions to get around restrictions or any court order that blocks access to the website because of or linked to copyright infringement
  • Traffic or frequency of access to the website

Laying precedence of the case, that the defendant websites in question are of a ‘rogue’ nature, therefore, the court held that the websites were infringing the exclusive rights and copyrights of the plaintiff. The websites, in this case, served as a model of facilitation to infringe the copyright of the plaintiff.

Judgement

The Delhi High court acknowledged the contentions raised by the plaintiff as justified and that if adequate orders are not passed, the plaintiff would incur significant losses. Based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the Court concluded that the defendants were involved in digital piracy in terms of assisting and committing copyright infringement. A permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from violating the exclusive rights and the suspension of domain name registration of alleged websites was granted as a relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also entitled to the actual costs of the suit.

Comments:

After reading the facts and issues of this case, one can assess that the case primarily falls in the realm of the Copyright Act of 1957. The law safeguards both financial rights and moral rights. One can say that exclusive rights are awarded to creators/artists for their intellectual creations. The case is predominantly about digital piracy. The laws governing digital piracy in India are:

  • The Copyright Act,1957
  • The Information Technology Act, 2000
  • The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009

The Copyright Act safeguards dramatic, artistic, cinematographic film, etc.

Section 14 provides for the meaning of copyright. Copyright under Section 14(d) of the Act means exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance of any of the following acts with respect to a work or any significant portion thereof, namely:

In the case of a cinematograph film, —

  • To duplicate the film and any associated images,
  • Any copy of the movie may be sold, provided for rent, or offered for sale or rental, regardless of previous sales or rentals of the copy.
  • To inform the general audience about the movie.

What would constitute copyright infringement is provided under Section 51 of the Act. Clause (b)(ii), (iv) provides that copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any person distributes the work to such an extent that it prejudicially affects the copyright owner or imports into India "any infringing copies of the work".

In the present case, the defendants' websites did not take consent or permission from the plaintiff thereby violating its exclusive rights by making a copy of the film, hosting or streaming, or making the film available for download to the public. The distribution of a movie in such a manner affected the copyright owner prejudicially. The websites were determined as “rogue websites”. The finding that the defendants' websites come fully within the purview of rogue websites was reached after considering the nature of the activity and the questionable status of the websites' registrant.

In the digital arena, it becomes difficult to trace the culprits involved in copyright infringement. Anonymity is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. In digital piracy, either an individual can be held liable or the Internet Service Providers. However, holding either of them liable is impractical. Enforcing rights against each internet user is inherently not possible. And with regards to ISPs, they are merely intermediaries.

In the present case, under ex parte ad interim order, the Court directed the alleged ISPs to ensure that access to the websites listed is blocked. One can say that the decision limits the liability of ISPs regarding intellectual property rights. ISP liability as a concept does not exist in India. In order to develop an efficient and fair remedy that adequately allays the plaintiff's concerns, the ISPs and Departments of the Government are impleaded as defendants.

The court considered evidence such as screenshot(s), WHOIS information, etc which only shows that a well-reasoned decision was made. The investigation, in this case, was made by a third party that provided authentic information, maintaining neutrality.

Another issue pertaining to Digital Piracy, in this case, was the non-appearance of the defendants and failure to comply with the notices or the summons showing the indifference between the law and the mindset with which digital piracy is approached. The casual treatment signifies non-seriousness. The ignorance of the defendants towards the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff was obvious, making it easier for the court to make a decision.

The advancement of technology and the internet though is leading us towards a developed society; however, it is also opening the doors for violation and infringement of any law in the digital space, be it privacy or piracy. Today, it only takes a few clicks to replicate someone else's creative work. Therefore, protecting copyright holders' interests in the digital sphere is crucial. India should recognize ISP liability and implement stricter regulations to enforce and uphold the rights of the copyright holders in the digital space. In the coming future, it'll be interesting to see the interplay of digital space and copyrights as the space uncovers not only the limitation but also the potential of the Copyright Act.

References:
  1. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.Com & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2040.
  2. S.T. Sunitha Rai, A Chronicle of John Doe in India, 10 IJCRT 855, 855, 3 (2022).
  3. UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337x.To And Ors, (2019) 78 PTC 375 (Del).
  4. Poonam Nahar, Difference between Intellectual Property and Intellectual Rights, IPLEADERS BLOG, (Aug 9, 2023, 9:45 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-intellectual-property-and-intellectual-rights/#Case_law_Star_India_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Moviestrunkcom_Ors.
  5. LEGAL 60, Limitations of Copyright Law in Cyberspace, LEGAL 60 LAW NEWS AGGREGATOR, (Aug. 8, 2023, 7:30 PM) https://legal60.com/limitations-of-copyright-law-in-cyberspace/.
Author:

*Ms. Anushka Rao
B.A. LL.B. Student,
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of the Alliance Centre for Intellectual Property Rights(ACIPR) and the Centre does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.