Judgement Briefs

Intellectual Property Rights

MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

2017 (69) PTC 1 (Del) (DB); 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382

Citation
2017 (69) PTC 1 (Del) (DB); 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382
Court
Delhi High Court
Date
23 December 2016
Bench
S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma JJ.

Facts

  • Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. owned copyright in a large catalogue of songs, sound recordings, films and music videos.
  • MySpace operated an online social-networking platform on which users could upload videos and other content.
  • Some users uploaded material containing works claimed by Super Cassettes.
  • MySpace used automated systems to process uploaded files and make them available on its platform.
  • It also earned advertising revenue from pages on which user-generated content appeared.
  • Super Cassettes alleged that MySpace had knowingly facilitated and commercially benefited from copyright infringement.
  • MySpace argued that it was an internet intermediary protected by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • It maintained that it did not select or initiate the infringing uploads and removed specifically identified material after receiving notice.
  • The Single Judge granted a broad injunction requiring MySpace to prevent the availability of Super Cassettes’ present and future works.
  • MySpace appealed to the Division Bench.

Issue

  • What degree of knowledge is necessary to impose secondary copyright liability upon an internet intermediary?
  • Whether general awareness that some infringement occurs is sufficient.
  • Whether the Copyright Act and the safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act can operate together.
  • Whether an intermediary must proactively monitor every user upload.

Rule

  • Under Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, a person permitting a place to be used for infringing communication may be liable where that person:
  • has knowledge or reasonable grounds for believing that infringement is occurring; and
  • permits the use for profit.
  • Knowledge must ordinarily relate to specific and identifiable infringing material.
  • General awareness that a platform may contain some infringing content is insufficient.
  • Section 79 of the Information Technology Act protects qualifying intermediaries that:
  • do not initiate or select the transmission;
  • observe due diligence;
  • expeditiously remove unlawful material upon obtaining legally sufficient knowledge.
  • Copyright owners must provide information precise enough to identify the infringing content.
  • Intermediaries are not subject to a general obligation to monitor every communication.

Application

  • The Court recognised that millions of files may be uploaded to a large platform.
  • A general list of thousands of copyrighted works could not tell MySpace which particular user upload was unauthorised.
  • The same song or film might lawfully appear under:
  • a licence;
  • permission from another rights-holder;
  • fair dealing;
  • another statutory exception.
  • Therefore, the intermediary could not assume that every appearance of a copyrighted title was unlawful.
  • Automated conversion, formatting or storage of files did not prove that MySpace had consciously selected the infringing expression.
  • Similarly, earning advertising revenue from the overall platform did not by itself establish specific knowledge of each infringement.
  • The Court required the copyright owner to identify particular URLs or files with sufficient detail.
  • Once such specific notice was supplied, MySpace was required to act expeditiously.
  • In copyright cases, a rights-holder was not necessarily required to first obtain a court order before giving effective notice.
  • However, the notice had to be sufficiently specific and supported by a claim of ownership.
  • The broad injunction granted by the Single Judge was practically impossible because it required MySpace to identify and prevent all present and future infringements without being told where they appeared.
  • Such an injunction would effectively impose continuous monitoring, contrary to the structure of intermediary safe harbour.
  • The Court therefore replaced the blanket restraint with a notice-and-takedown approach based on specifically identified content.

Conclusion

  • The Division Bench held that intermediary liability requires actual or specific knowledge of identifiable infringement, not merely general awareness.
  • Sections 51 of the Copyright Act and 79 of the Information Technology Act must be harmoniously applied.
  • MySpace could retain safe-harbour protection where it acted as a neutral intermediary and promptly removed content after specific notice.
  • It was not required to proactively inspect every upload.
  • The broad injunction concerning unidentified present and future works was modified.
  • Use this case for: an online intermediary becomes responsible after receiving specific knowledge of identifiable infringement and failing to act expeditiously.