Recent
reports about the change in copyright infringement(violation,उल्लंघन) warnings on various
websites have triggered anxiety among many Internet users in India. While the
government has maintained a list of banned websites for quite some time, the
warning that one earlier saw merely mentioned that the website had been blocked
under directions from the Department of Telecommunications, while the new
message warns against the viewing, downloading, exhibition and duplication of
the contents of the URL as being offences which are punishable under Sections
63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act. It further states that these
provisions prescribe a punishment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs.3
lakh.
Conflating
various provisions
Sec. 63 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the offence of infringement, provides that any person who ‘knowingly’ infringes copyright or abets(assist,उकसाना) in the infringement of the same may be punished with imprisonment (minimum of six months and extendable to three years) and fined up to Rs.2 lakh. The new warning seems to have accounted for inflation and arbitrarily(randomly,मनमाने ढंग से ) extended the fine amount to Rs.3 lakh, but that is only one part of its disingenuity. What the warning does is to conflate(mix,मिश्रित) all the provisions and flatten them as though they all deal with a singular thing called infringement.
Sec. 63 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the offence of infringement, provides that any person who ‘knowingly’ infringes copyright or abets(assist,उकसाना) in the infringement of the same may be punished with imprisonment (minimum of six months and extendable to three years) and fined up to Rs.2 lakh. The new warning seems to have accounted for inflation and arbitrarily(randomly,मनमाने ढंग से ) extended the fine amount to Rs.3 lakh, but that is only one part of its disingenuity. What the warning does is to conflate(mix,मिश्रित) all the provisions and flatten them as though they all deal with a singular thing called infringement.
It
is important to remember that the provision of the Act itself distinguishes
between commercial and personal infringement and it provides that where any
infringement has not been made in the course of trade or business, the court
may impose a term for less than six months and a fine of less than Rs.5,000.
Sec. 63-A deals with repeat offences and provides for a higher fine and
imprisonment term for someone who has already been convicted for an offence
under Sec. 63. Sec. 65 deals with the possession of plates for the purposes of
making infringing copies, a term inherited from print piracy which deals with
mass reproductions of material such as bestsellers. And finally Sec. 65-A deals
with the circumvention(remedy,उपाय) of technological
measures for protecting copyright or what is popularly known as digital rights
management with the intention of infringing rights. And even within this
provision there are a number of exceptions provided where someone may
legitimately circumvent a measure for technological protection.
It
is abundantly(richly,बहुतायत से) clear that the warning is neither accurate
in law nor entirely honest in its invocation of the penal provisions of the
Copyright Act. While it is true that some of these provisions penalise the
infringement of copyright, the fact is that the provisions which have been cited(mentioned,उल्लेख) in the warnings all pertain(related,सम्बंधित) to different acts and to
different degrees of liability accruing based on the nature of the act, the pecuniary(financial,धन
संबंधी)
gains, etc. The requirement of knowledge in the case of Sec. 63 and intention
in Sec. 65-A establishes a relatively high burden of proof on someone claiming
infringement, but the warning seems to shift this burden and creates a
presumption that any act with respect to a prohibited URL would necessarily be
infringement.
What
happens in cases when someone uses file-sharing mechanisms as a way of
distributing public domain material? Raj Kapoor’s Awaara, for instance, is
available through The Pirate Bay, but it is a film whose term of copyright has
expired and may be legitimately downloaded from The Pirate Bay. By flattening
the differences between the provisions, the warnings seek to rely on a
by-now-well-known strategy of ‘shock and awe’. Just as the global war against
terror obfuscated(unclear,अस्पठ) the debate through the
rhetoric of shock and awe, the war against piracy relies on a similar strategy
that conceals rather than illuminates some of the key questions.
Piracy
as a productive force
The question of copyright and the appropriateness of a model that treats intangibles(untouchable,अमूर्त) as property has been seriously questioned both in terms of its normative basis as well as in terms of its efficacy. Rather than just seeing media piracy as a legal or a moral problem, it would be more accurate to see it as a global pricing problem. High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. Media piracy arises when market failures meet increasingly cheap and improved infrastructures (bandwidth, hardware) of information transmission. Does this pose a problem to owners of copyright? Of course it does, but there is nothing new about that. Every technological advancement starting from the print revolution has transformed the ways we access knowledge and culture and innovations in technology have also been accompanied by innovations in business models. Thus while the introduction of VHS and video cassettes were predicted to be the death of the film industry, what happened instead was the creation of a new business model of home entertainment. In the Indian context, Moser Baer recognised this with their introduction of low-priced DVDs which competed with the pirate markets. So assuming that the desire for low-cost entertainment is not going to disappear, the options are either a rethink of the business models or to rely on penal laws to protect any older business model.
The question of copyright and the appropriateness of a model that treats intangibles(untouchable,अमूर्त) as property has been seriously questioned both in terms of its normative basis as well as in terms of its efficacy. Rather than just seeing media piracy as a legal or a moral problem, it would be more accurate to see it as a global pricing problem. High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. Media piracy arises when market failures meet increasingly cheap and improved infrastructures (bandwidth, hardware) of information transmission. Does this pose a problem to owners of copyright? Of course it does, but there is nothing new about that. Every technological advancement starting from the print revolution has transformed the ways we access knowledge and culture and innovations in technology have also been accompanied by innovations in business models. Thus while the introduction of VHS and video cassettes were predicted to be the death of the film industry, what happened instead was the creation of a new business model of home entertainment. In the Indian context, Moser Baer recognised this with their introduction of low-priced DVDs which competed with the pirate markets. So assuming that the desire for low-cost entertainment is not going to disappear, the options are either a rethink of the business models or to rely on penal laws to protect any older business model.
The
shift in the nature of the warning seems to suggest that the government and
private players have opted for the latter. This may be a short-sighted strategy
that misrecognises the role piracy has played not just as a destructive but
also as a productive force. Piracy indeed does impose a range of costs on
producers and distributors of content, but in developing countries they also
act as the main source of access to a wide range of media and knowledge. One
good example of this is LibGen, a site which provides access to thousands of
pirated books, many of which are not just not available or affordable in India.
While this is indeed piracy, if we were to suspend for a moment our legal and
moral indignation and ask what other descriptions one could give of LibGen,
then as Bodo Balazs — a scholar of piracy studies — provocatively argues, it
has been the single greatest knowledge transfer project in the history of
humanity.
Not
a settled debate
It is also important to understand the dynamics of media markets in emerging markets, and the harms of piracy should not be treated as settled question, but one that needs more debate. Studies have shown that the perceived harms of copyright infringement may be overstated and the presumption that every download equals a lost sale is just not true. In a global comparative study of media piracy in emerging economies it was found that there was no correlation(connection,सहसंबंध) between the commercial success of a film and the number of times that it had been downloaded, and it was indeed the case that the films which were downloaded the most were also the most successful ones at the box office.
It is also important to understand the dynamics of media markets in emerging markets, and the harms of piracy should not be treated as settled question, but one that needs more debate. Studies have shown that the perceived harms of copyright infringement may be overstated and the presumption that every download equals a lost sale is just not true. In a global comparative study of media piracy in emerging economies it was found that there was no correlation(connection,सहसंबंध) between the commercial success of a film and the number of times that it had been downloaded, and it was indeed the case that the films which were downloaded the most were also the most successful ones at the box office.
The
new warnings and the panic it seeks to create are counterproductive for all
parties — consumers, governments and copyright interests — that drive the
enforcement agenda, and there is a need to frame the debate within a larger
structural understanding of the complex dynamics of the costs imposed by more stringent(strict,सख्त) enforcement of
copyright.
The
history of technology and cultural production is a contested history in which
new technologies disrupt existing power relations, redistribute the means of
cultural production and redefine questions of access. The war against piracy
addresses only one axis of the debate and as with all wars which are being
lost, you hope to win by heightening the rhetorical stakes. Perhaps this
ill-informed and misguided set of warnings should be taken not just as a moment
in which we panic but one in which we collectively raise larger questions and
challenge the logic of stronger penalising of knowledge offences. We are, after
all, from the country which produced the most subtle text of literal and moral
wars — the Mahabharata — in which Ekalavya, when denied a privileged education,
created the first pirated copy of Dronacharya to educate himself. Ekalavya paid
a terrible price — the cutting of his thumb — but there are still millions who
bleed as a result.
courtesy:the hindu