Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace
(2011) 48 PTC 49
In the High Court of Delhi
CS (OS) 2682/2008
Before Justice Manmohan Singh
Decided on July 29, 2011

Relevancy of the case: Petition for taking down copyrighted content from the defendant’s website

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 52(a)(ii), 79, 81)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 467)
• The Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 14, 51(a)(i))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff is a media house that has many copyrighted songs, films, etc.
• The respondent is the social media website ‘Myspace’, where there is an exchange of media, free of charge.
• It is being alleged that even after a notice was given, the respondents did not take down the plaintiff’s copyrighted content from their website.
• The trial court gave the petitioner interim relief by directing the defendant to remove the content from its website.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the defendants violated copyright laws as they provided a ‘place’ to the users to enable them to communicate the works of the plaintiff. Further, they submitted that infringement of copyright is still happening.
• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that as the advertisements are placed alongside the works of the plaintiff, the defendants have permitted a place to be used for infringement for gaining profits.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that as the company is a foreign company that carries out business in the USA, this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction over it. The counsel contends that their website is just an intermediary and have no role in the selection of the uploaded content.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner is not the copyright owner of the movies and the defendant’s action is protected under the USA’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Hence, the website is not the owner of the uploaded content. They also contended that they have tools in place that the copyright holders can use to take down or restrict their copyrighted content from the website.
• Lastly, the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not provided any documents which showed that any commercial transaction was taking place between the website and their users, as all the services are free.

Opinion of the Bench

• ‘Any place’ for copyright would include any space that facilitates infringement.
• There is a difference between having knowledge of an act, and actively participating in it.
• Myspace prima facie provided a space for profit, and their acts were not bona fide as they earned profits from the advertisements transmitted on their website.
• As for jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, the court said a case could be filed at the place where the petitioner conducts business. The defendants did cater to Indians and hence conducted business in the country.
• Section 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, cannot curtail the rights of copyright owners, and due diligence needs to be done before the infringement rather after it.
• The defendants should take down the plaintiff’s copyrighted content from their website and also take steps to update themselves of further ownership of music, songs, etc., of the plaintiff.

Final Decision

• Application allowed.