Copyright Piracy As A Criminal Offence
I. Understanding Copyright Piracy as a Criminal Offence
Copyright piracy refers to the unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, or sale of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. This act infringes upon the exclusive rights granted to the creator or owner under copyright law.
In most jurisdictions, including India, the UK, and the US, piracy is treated as a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence, depending on the severity, scale, and intent. The criminalization of piracy acts as a deterrent and is aimed at punishing willful infringement that causes financial or reputational harm.
II. Legal Framework (India)
In India, the primary legislation is the Copyright Act, 1957 (amended in 2012), which provides both civil and criminal remedies.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 63 – Willful infringement is a criminal offence; punishable with imprisonment of at least 6 months (extendable to 3 years) and fine (minimum ₹50,000).
Section 63A – Enhanced penalty on second and subsequent conviction.
Section 65 – Tampering with rights management information is also an offence.
Section 66 – Knowing use of infringing copy for gain is also criminal.
III. Key Case Laws on Copyright Piracy as a Criminal Offence
Below are five detailed cases that demonstrate how copyright piracy has been dealt with by Indian courts:
1. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978 AIR 1613)
Facts:
R.G. Anand, a playwright, alleged that the film "New Delhi" copied his play "Hum Hindustani". He claimed infringement of copyright and sought remedies.
Issue:
Was there a substantial similarity amounting to piracy that would justify legal action?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down important principles:
Mere idea cannot be copyrighted; only the expression of the idea is protected.
If the expression is substantially similar and there is clear evidence of copying, it amounts to infringement.
Relevance to Criminal Piracy:
Although the case was primarily civil, it established the threshold of infringement, which is essential in criminal prosecution. A strong civil case often forms the basis for criminal liability under Section 63.
2. Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. Amit Sharma (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1046)
Facts:
Shemaroo, a well-known content owner, filed a criminal case against Amit Sharma, who was found selling pirated DVDs of movies for commercial gain.
Issue:
Was the act of selling pirated DVDs criminally punishable under the Copyright Act?
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court upheld criminal proceedings, emphasizing that commercial exploitation of pirated content was a serious criminal offence under Sections 63 and 65.
Importance:
This case confirmed that sale and distribution of pirated content, especially for profit, is not merely civil infringement but a punishable criminal offence.
3. State Government of NCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar Garg (2005 Cri LJ 2263)
Facts:
Naresh Garg was caught duplicating and selling pirated CDs and cassettes. He challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under the Copyright Act.
Issue:
Can criminal action be taken in addition to civil remedies for copyright infringement?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court ruled that the existence of civil remedies does not negate criminal prosecution, especially when the infringement is willful and done for profit.
Importance:
This case established that intent (mens rea) and commercial motive justify the application of criminal law over and above civil remedies.
4. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2017 SCC OnLine Del 11065)
Facts:
Super Cassettes (T-Series) accused MySpace of allowing pirated content to be uploaded by users on its platform.
Issue:
Was MySpace criminally liable for copyright infringement as an intermediary?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court emphasized that platforms must act promptly to remove infringing content once notified. However, criminal liability requires proof of knowledge and willful facilitation.
Importance:
This case clarified that digital platforms may also face criminal consequences if they knowingly allow piracy, thus broadening the scope of criminal action in the digital age.
5. Tips Industries Ltd. v. M/s Wynk Music Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 303)
Facts:
Wynk Music streamed songs owned by Tips Industries without a valid license, leading to a criminal complaint under the Copyright Act.
Issue:
Whether non-licensed digital streaming of content amounts to piracy and is punishable.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that streaming copyrighted content without authorization, especially for commercial gain, constitutes infringement. Depending on the facts, it could lead to criminal liability under Section 63.
Importance:
This case demonstrated how unauthorized digital distribution—even by well-known platforms—can lead to criminal prosecution if done willfully.
IV. Elements Required for Criminal Prosecution of Copyright Piracy
To establish criminal liability under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the following must be proven:
Willful infringement (mens rea)
Knowledge of the infringement
Commercial motive or financial gain
Substantial copying or distribution
V. Conclusion
Copyright piracy is more than just an ethical breach; it is a criminal offence with serious legal consequences. Indian law provides a robust framework to penalize offenders through imprisonment, fines, and seizure of infringing goods. The courts have consistently upheld the criminalization of piracy, especially when there's clear evidence of commercial intent and willful violation.
Through the detailed case laws, it is evident that:
Piracy cases are treated seriously in both physical and digital formats.
Criminal law applies not only to pirates but also to enablers (e.g., platforms).
Judicial interpretation is evolving with technological advancements, but the core principle remains: unauthorized use of copyrighted content is a punishable crime.
RELATED Blog
0 comments