|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABOUT THE STUDY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC AWARENESS OF COPYRIGHT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The present chapter deals mainly with the problems associated with the enforcement of Copyright Act, 1957 (Amended in 1994). It also examines how these can be overcome. The chapter covers the public awareness of copyright and the necessary steps to be taken in order to reduce the extent of copyright violation (piracy), if not eliminate it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role of Police | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section 64 of the
Indian Copyright Act confers the power on the police to seize
infringed copies of copyrighted works. The section authorises any
Police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, to seize
without warrant, all copies of the work wherever found if he is
satisfied that an offence under section 63 in respect of the
infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is
likely to be committed and all copies and plates so seized shall, as
soon as practicable, be produced before a magistrate. As per the sub
section (1) of the section 64, the power of seizing infringing
copies has been conferred on sub inspector and above. However, many
police officers may refrain from implementing their powers because
of the clause ‘if he is satisfied’. Based on discussions with
some of the owners of copyrighted works and some police personnel
under Crime Branch, it was found that there have been allegations
and counter allegations regarding the role of police personnel’s.
Police, in general, admits that infringement of copyright work has
not been extended as high a priority as in the case of murders, law
and order problems, etc. They blame the rightholders for not coming
forward to either lodge a complaint formally or failing to produce
necessary proof/document before the court. The rightholders on the
other hand, blame the police for not taking effective steps and for
their apathetic attitude towards copyright violators. They
mention that, in some cases there is a strong nexus between the
violators and the police. We had approached the Police Departments
in all the states and Union Territories to give their views about
the enforcement of Copyright Act and related issues. Besides,
questions were also raised to various target groups in
six surveyed cities such as film producers, video cassette sellers,
music companies, sellers of audio products, sellers of computer
software, public performers, publishers and book sellers to know
their views regarding enforcement of copyright laws in the country. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The filled in questionnaires were received from the Police Departments of only 13 states/UTs out of 30 contacted. It has been observed from their responses that in seven states/UTs there exists a separate cell dealing exclusively with copyright related crimes. These cells in some cases deal with violations related to trade marks as well. Some of the bigger states like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka do not have separate copyright cell and there copyright cases are being handled by their respective Crime Branch. In case of Maharastra state only Mumbai city has a separate copyright cell. In 5 states/UT’s, there were no reports of violation of any kind during the last three years. One state did not furnish information on number of violations. For the remaining 7 states the total number of copyright violations in 1996-97 stood at a 151, the majority of which were reported from the states like Maharastra, West Bengal and Karnataka. Segment wise ,most of these violations have been reported for film and video only. Only two states had given information on violation of copyrights related to software, music and books. Because very few cases are being registered, it is obvious that extent of violation as per their records has been shown as negligible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It has also been admitted by eight states that enforcement of copryright law in general is not satisfactory in India. The non satisfactory performance as per the police departments is mainly due to rightholders who fail to produce authentic and legally admissible evidence to prove ownership of their copyrights. This was also observed from the view points of the various target groups we have surveyed. While majority of the target groups (about 59.4 percent ) though not satisfied (Table 8.1) with the performance of enforcement authority, about 36.2 percent of them stated that the main responsibility lies with the rightholders themselves (Table 8.2). If we exclude the target groups belonging to authorised sellers of these products i.e. if we take only the owners of copyright such as film producers,video film producers, book publishers, music companies, it was found that 42.1 percent blamed themselves (stated main reason) for non satisfactory performance of enforcement authority. This was also reflected in the survey of the rightholders with respect to complaints lodged with the police. It was found that during 1996-97 out of 57 film producers only one came to know of any violation of his films for which complaint was lodged with the police. None of the video producers lodged any complaints. While six publishers came to know 19 violations for which only one lodged the complaint, only one music company came to know eight violations for which no complaints were lodged. Only 9.5 per cent of them were of the view that police is mainly responsible for enforcing Copyright Act. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It was observed from the discussions with police personnel as well as the rightholders that in most of the States/UTs a majority of the police personnels in the Crime Branch/copyright cell are not familiar with the provisions of the Copyright Act. Information collected from 13 states through mailed survey also support this. The majority of the states admitted that their police personnels are either partially familiar or not familiar at all with the Copyright Act. Only for 3 states out of 13 responded to the survey, the percentage of police force fully familiar with Act exceeded 50%. Because of this reason they had to take help from the respective associations/copyright societies. They have been able to raid premises of persons indulging in making duplicates of music and film cassettes, selling copied software products etc mainly with the help of the associations like NASSCOM, Indian Music Industry, etc. But it becomes difficult for them to deal with violators such as cable operators. The premises of the operator has to be raided whenever a film is in progress i.e. during two to two and a half hours when the movie is being shown, that too with the help of right holders. Many a times, it is very difficult for the rightholders to be present even after the complaint. Of course, police personnel also find it difficult to allocate time to attend such complaints, since according to them they have many other cases to look after with few persons to man the cell. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The police personnels in general also agreed that they lacked the orientation towards copyright laws, such as knowledge of distinguishing infringed copies (i.e. duplicate copies) from the originals, machines used for making duplicate copies etc and more particularly penalties for violations etc. The problem is more acute in case of computer softwares. As per the information received from the thirteen States/Union Territories, it is found that none of the states have arranged any training for their police personnel associated with the implementation of Copyright Act. When asked about the problems faced in arranging training programmes, the responses were in expected lines, that there is lack of adequate funds, shortage of good trainers in the copyright area etc. They also sometime find it difficult to spare police personnel for training since they are mostly busy not only in copyright related crimes but also in other engagements. Police personnel involved in combating piracy have to be trained in Copyright Act, kinds of violations under different segments of copyright industry. They have also to be trained to differentiate the original from the pirated products. The respective associations should take a lead in this area since ultimately the losses due to piracy affect their members the most. There can also be some sort of revenue sharing whenever raids are conducted between the police personnel and the rightholder/copyright societies. Towards the effective implementation of Copyright Act, the rightholders have to fully co-operate with the police departments not only in conducting raids but also appearing before the court as and when required with original documents and necessary materials. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 8.1 : Views on Performance of the Enforcement Authority by Different Target Groups
Note: Figures in brackets show percentage to the Total. Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 8.2 : Distribution of Target Groups According to the Responsibilities for Non-Satisfactory Performance of Enforcement Authority
Note: Figures in brackets are the percentages to the total Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Awareness on Copyright | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In the previous section of this chapter the role of enforcement authority more so for police has been highlighted and the problems associated with it. It was also observed from table 8.2 that a substantial portion (about 26.8 percent) of the respondents were of the opinion that the main responsibility of the piracy lies with the endusers i.e. ultimate customers who use/buy these products. It is the apathy of customers and their demand for cheaper products that give rise to copyright violations by the unauthorised persons/agencies. The other side is also true equally that if pirated products were not available, customers would not be able to procure them. The situation is like the popular chicken and egg story. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Before we go into the discussion on effective steps which are required in order to educate the people i.e. end users of these products, it is essential to know whether people are aware of the existence of copyright and also the extent of penalties for their violations may call for under the Copyright Act. These questions were looked into from two angles. On the one hand we approached the rightholders of copyright products and sellers/distributors of copyright products and on the other hand we also approached the end users themselves. The sample may not be fully representative to reveal all relevant aspects in the sense that the respondents are located in the large urban areas and were also confined to those who have acquired some education. In all the cases the end users were matriculates and above, a majority of them being graduates and above. Nevertheless, it would give the required leads in this regard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| About 27 percent of Copyright owners and sellers of Copyright products placed the main responsibility on the end users with regard to problem of enforcement. About 61 percent of the respondents belonging to this category stated that in general public awareness of copyright in India is poor. 26 percent opined this to be satisfactory whereas the rest (only about 12 percent) stated that it is either excellent or good(Table 8.3). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The arguments put forward by the rightholders and sellers of copyright products have been contradicted by the end users. From the responses of the end users it was observed that 81.5 per cent of them are aware of phenomenon of copyright violations (Table 8.4). About 73 percent of the end users were also of the view that one should not buy pirated products even it is available at a lower price because it is detrimental to the interests of the rightholders and the society (Table 8.5). The majority of the respondents (about 78 percent) also admitted that they were aware of the punishment for copyright violation.(Table 8.6) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| From the above, it has been found that public is generally aware of the fact that copyright violation is not a desired thing. They also admit that anything created/made/produced by somebody is not to be duplicated, copied and commercially exploited by others. Another interesting feature was revealed while carrying out the survey for software end users belonging mostly to the organisations from both service as well as manufacturing sectors. A question was addressed to the computer personnel whether by using one legal software in more than one independent computer machine, would amount to copyright violation or not. We found that a majority (about 59 per cent) out of 87 respondents mentioned that it is not a violation. The term end user may require a redefinition under the Act. The present machine specific definition may be too narrow to serve any useful purpose and could therefore encourage wilful violations. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 8.3 : Public Awareness of Copyright as perceived by various Target Groups
Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 8.4: Responses of End users about their knowledge on the phenomenon of copyright violations
Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statement 1. There is nothing wrong in buying pirated product so long the product satisfies users requirements and priced less than original Statement 2: One should not buy pirated product even if it is available at a lower price because it is detrimental to the interests of the rightholders and the society. Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 8.6:Responses of end users regarding knowledge about the punishment on Buying Pirated products.
Source: NPC Survey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What needs to be done ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A massive publicity campaign regarding the ills of copyright violation mentioning its being criminal offence, consequences,etc. could be launched. This is however, a gigantic task. Everybody involved in this, like the Government, local authorities, rightholders, associations, copyright societies, law enforcing authorities, etc have to join hands together. To start with, the campaign could be launched through mass media like newspapers, journals, electronic media such as TV, Cinema halls,etc. The campaign should also highlight how to identify the pirated products as opposed to genuine products. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Education campaign can also be launched at the school and college levels since students are the major consumers of the goods produced by copyright industry. However, piracy is not a phenomenon that can be tackled through any short cut in the short term . This should be a long term effort to educate students of schools and colleges. Piracy related matters could be part of school or college curriculum especially for the students of electronics who may be exposed to implications and methods of software piracy. Simultaneously, lectures, demonstrations may be organised in various parts of the country with the principals of colleges/schools who in turn may teach their students. If this is to be successful, everybody involved in the copyright related works has to join hands together. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Though in a limited scale, NASSCOM, Indian Music Industry have been involved towards educating people in various forums and through newspapers but their efforts have not been able to bring desired results. In the field of cinematographic and book publishing almost nothing has been done. The associations alongwith copyright office have to necessarily take very active part in this direction in order to reduce the extent of piracy if not eliminate it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Not only the end users, the rightholders and the dealers/distributors are also to be educated on the Indian copyright laws. Many rightholders, though were aware of copyright, are not fully acquainted with the various provisions of the Indian Copyright Act. The rightholders in many cases are reluctant to do any thing even if they come to know about the violation of their works. This is more so in the case of cinematographic works, and music and to some extent book publishing. This got revealed while discussing with some of the rightholders. Therefore, the right holders also need to be trained in every aspect of copyright and they should be convinced that occurrence of any violation adversely affects their interests directly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The police personnel
including the constables have to be properly trained. Phased
programmes have to be developed with the help of associations,
prominent lawyers including prominent industrialists/ rightholders.
One day/two day workshops may be organised for the heads of the
crime branches/copyright cells regarding all the related problems of
copyright. Lead can be taken by copyright office A training
module could be made and circulated to these people at the
workshops. In turn the heads of the crime branches/copyright cells
in the respective states/UTs may educate their colleagues. If needed
persons/associations like NASSCOM, IMI, IPRS, etc could be invited
to address such workshops. Anti Piracy hot line in the line of
NASSCOM can be installed at the respective associations, copyright
societies and with the crime branch in respective states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|