Copyright (c) 2003 Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Summer, 2003
26 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 295
LENGTH: 9318 words
NOTE: COPYRIGHT PROBLEMS IN INDIA AFFECTING HOLLYWOOD AND
"BOLLYWOOD"
NAME: Priti H. Doshi
SUMMARY:
... She and her nine-year-old son regularly patronize the Mumbai cinema halls, where
crowds of Indians gather to catch the latest Hindi film. ... An Indian film industry official
estimated, for example, that India loses at least rupees 1,700 crore, US$ 360 million, in
revenue annually and the Indian Government loses rupees 750 crore in taxes because of
the piracy industry. ... Police officers are unwilling to crackdown on copyright
infringement because they subjectively construe the language of the Indian copyright law.
... Contrary to Indian copyright laws, police officers routinely demand copyright
registration certificates from complainants for each film found during an investigation
and seize the pirated videos. ... Although the language confers broad power on any police
officer above the sub-inspector rank to seize infringed copyright works, most officers fail
to utilize their power because they believe that the copyright infringement fails to meet
the "if he is satisfied" threshold. ... The responsibility to reduce piracy lies primarily with
the customer who buys and uses pirated products, and "it is the apathy of customers and
their demand for cheaper products that give rise to copyright violations. ..." Customers
continue to buy pirated products because they lack knowledge of the copyright laws and
the effects of infringement on the film industry. ...
TEXT:
[*295]
I. Introduction
Leena Mogre, a Mumbai fitness expert, considers herself a Hindi movie buff. n1 She and
her nine-year-old son regularly patronize the Mumbai cinema halls, where crowds of
Indians gather to catch the latest Hindi film. n2 Lately, however, Indians are less
enthusiastic about making the trip to the nearest cinema. n3 For example, Lena and her
son did not make the effort to see Salman Khan's movie, Jab Pyar Kisi Se Hota Hai, in
the Indian cinema hall they regularly frequent. n4 She reasoned, "in a week or two, they'll
show it on cable, yaar [sic]." n5
India's film industry, which is enjoyed both nationally and internationally, produces the
largest number of films in the world. n6 Today, however, this film industry faces its
greatest [*296] threat: video and cable piracy. n7 The growing piracy black market is
detrimental to both India's economy and its international relationships, especially its
relations with the United States. n8 An [*297] Indian film industry official estimated,
for example, that India loses at least rupees 1,700 crore, US$ 360 million, in revenue
annually and the Indian Government loses rupees 750 crore in taxes because of the piracy
industry. n9 Although India significantly strengthened its intellectual property rights
protection by enacting the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1994 (Copyright Act of 1994),
the country's film industry continues to face high levels of video and cable piracy. n10
This Note focuses on the recent amendments to India's copyright laws and how the new
enforcement policies have failed to protect intellectual property rights of both Indian and
U.S. producers, directors, and actors. n11 Part II of this Note provides a detailed
evolutionary history of India's copyright laws and the legal changes that occurred in
response to international pressure. n12 Part III of this Note examines the concerns facing
the Indian film and music industry, "Bollywood," and Hollywood, which continues to
place India on the U.S. "watch list." n13 Part [*298] IV of this Note recommends that
India change its approach to enforcing its amended Copyright Act of 1994 by: (1)
educating its police force; (2) strengthening its lower criminal court systems; (3)
amending the statutory presumptions of the copyright laws; and (4) increasing public
awareness of copyright issues. n14 Part V of this Note concludes that India must
immediately take a different approach to enforcing its copyright laws, improving
protection of intellectual property rights of the Indian and U.S. film industries and
allowing better relations with the international entertainment community. n15
II. The Evolution of India's Copyright Laws
A. History of British Copyright Law
The history of the printing press and its effect on the evolution of Britain's copyright law
is crucial to understanding the development of Indian copyright law. n16 In response to
the growing popularity of the printing press, the British Government enacted the world's
first copyright act in 1709. n17 Copyright infringement was not a concern prior to the
15th century because [*299] copying was a laborious, expensive process. n18 The
invention of the printing press, however, advanced the importance of copyright protection
for writers because the world was suddenly able to mass-produce books, creating serious
copyright infringement problems. n19
The 1709 Statute of Anne protected British authors against copyright infringement. n20
The statute stated that an author of a printed book obtained the sole printing right for
twenty-one years beginning on April 10, 1710, and if the book was not already in print,
the author owned the rights for fourteen years after the publication date. n21 Upon
expiration of the fourteen-year period, the author could apply for the sole printing rights
for an additional fourteen-year period. n22 Since the 1709 Statute of Anne, Britain has
expanded copyright protection to different classes of works through various amendments.
n23
[*300] In 1842, England adopted another copyright act that repealed the statute of 1709
and act of 1814, and established longer protection terms for authors. n24 The amendment
stated, "fruits of a man's creative labor should be protected, so far as profitable
exploitation was concerned." n25 The British legislature realized the insufficiency in
giving an author the sole right to print and distribute, and the crucial importance of
protecting the author against piracy. n26
In 1942, England adopted a copyright act that codified and consolidated the earlier
copyright acts. n27 The new act abolished the common law of copyright, introduced a
minimum fifty-year term for an author, destroyed the registration requirement as a
prerequisite for claiming or enforcing copyrights, and introduced new provisions
expanding protection to include new copyrightable subject matters, such as
cinematograph films. n28 The British copyright law, which has significantly changed
since [*301] 1911, continues to be amended as copyright owners battle with piracy. n29
B. History of Indian Copyright Law
India's first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1914 (1914 Act), substantially resembled
Britain's copyright law of 1911 because of British rule in India during that time. n30 The
legislation changed, however, once India gained its independence and began to evolve
into a sovereign nation. n31 Following India's independence, it adopted the Copyright
Act of 1957, which retained some 1914 Act provisions, yet introduced several
modifications and additions. n32 The next amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957
occurred on August 9, 1984 with the adoption of The Copyright (Amendment) Act of
1983. n33 The Indian Parliament introduced numerous revisions for the new amendments
to conform to the Berne Convention (BC) and Universal Copyright Convention (UCC),
two conventions to which India is a party. n34
[*302] India adhered to certain general terms of the conventions; however, the
international community raised serious criticisms against the Copyright Act of 1983. n35
These criticisms stemmed from India's increasing piracy problem. n36 In response, the
Indian Parliament in 1984 enacted another amendment to India's copyright law. n37 The
Copyright Act of 1984 introduced provisions discouraging and preventing widespread
piracy of film and records. n38
[*303]
C. U.S. Influence on the Development of India's Copyright Laws
Despite India's attempt to address piracy problems through the 1984 amendments to the
Copyright Act, the country's copyright laws failed to meet international community
standards. n39 For example, the United States placed India on its "priority foreign
country" list (PFCL) from 1991 to 1993 because India's copyright laws insufficiently
protected intellectual property rights. n40 By adding India to this list, the United States
wanted to influence the country to change its copyright laws to better protect U.S.
intellectual property rights abroad. n41
[*304] The United States enacted the Special 301 provision under the 1988 Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act, which promoted the protection of U.S. intellectual
property overseas. n42 This provision requires the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to
identify those countries "that tolerate the most egregious piracy of intellectual property
by April 30 of each year." n43 If the country is classified as a "priority foreign country,"
the USTR will conduct negotiations with the country to stop the piracy. n44 If the
negotiations fail, the USTR has authorization to sanction the foreign country by
implementing trade restrictions. n45 In response to U.S. pressure for stronger copyright
protection, the Indian Government finally enacted the Copyright Act of 1994, which took
effect in May 1995. n46
[*305]
III. Present Condition of India's Copyright Laws and Enforcement System
A. Overview of Improvements Made to Indian Copyright Act and Problems Facing
Copyright Enforcement
With the adoption of the Copyright Act of 1994 amendment, India modernized and
strengthened its copyright protection laws, thereby bringing the country in harmony with
international practice and affording artists around the world better copyright protection.
n47 In addition to updating the copyright laws, the Indian Government established the
Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council to advise the government on [*306] measures
to improve copyright enforcement. n48 Police personnel received training through
seminars and videos to better understand the importance of copyright law protection. n49
The government passed legislation critical to the regulation of video shops and cable
operators who were constantly faced with piracy issues. n50 The Indian Government also
encouraged state governments to establish special cells to deal directly with copyright
and other intellectual property rights (IPR) violations. n51
Despite these efforts, the country's film industry continues to face serious cable and video
piracy problems because the Indian Government and courts have failed to properly
execute and enforce newly adopted laws. n52 A prominent personality in the Indian film
industry noted, for example, that a number of theaters recently ceased operations because
Indian audiences, who can watch the latest movies on cable television, stopped
patronizing the cinema halls. n53 In 1998, only three years after the passage of the
amended 1994 Copyright Act, piracy reached an alarming high with new movies shown
on cable television either before the movie's release in theaters or only days after it
[*307] played in the cinema halls. n54 Pirated videos and video CDs are not only
available in all major cities, but cable industry sources also estimate that between 40,000
to 70,000 cable operators around the country screen unauthorized films, costing the film
industry millions of dollars in lost revenues. n55
B. Problems with Indian Criminal and Civil Court Systems
The Indian court system presents a challenge to copyright enforcement. n56 The Indian
High Courts address copyright infringement only after cases meet exhaustive
administrative requirements. n57 The most difficult problem, however, lies at the lower
criminal judiciary level where copyright cases remain the lowest priority. n58 India's
criminal system is extremely slow and cumbersome, which delays the litigation process
and becomes an expensive endeavor for producers, directors, and actors who [*308]
seek immediate enforcement against copyright violators. n59 Trial delays also increase
because investigators are frequently transferred to remote locations for other projects, and
once they are relocated, securing their presence for a given case is difficult. n60 Due to
these delays, the investigators' evidence for the case is often misplaced or unusable; this
helps the defendant obtain a motion to postpone the hearing or trial and further delays the
litigation process. n61
The slow, burdensome criminal court system has been detrimental not only to the
enforcement of copyright laws on the national front, but also internationally, by failing to
conform to international standards set forth in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). n62 The current condition of the
Indian court system violates Articles 41(2), 42, and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement,
provisions that are specifically concerned with fair and equitable treatment towards
litigants. n63 If India does not immediately reform [*309] its criminal court system, the
international community will be reluctant to invest in India's entertainment industry. n64
In 1999, realizing the criminal justice system's ineffectiveness in fighting problems
against cable piracy, the motion picture industry brought its complaints before the civil
courts. n65 Employing civil litigation, the film industry obtained a number of broad
injunction orders, the violation of which would result in a contempt conviction against
the pirate. n66 Although these injunctions effectively deterred a number of cable
networks from screening unauthorized films, there has been substantial delay in the
enforcement of court orders against networks violating these injunctions. n67 Copyright
owners also face problems with infringement settlements because of the court system's
massive delays in bringing civil cases to final judgment. n68
C. Problems with India's Police Departments
The Copyright Act gives police officers the power to seize infringed copies of movies;
however, both copyright owners and [*310] the Indian justice system continue to face
major problems obtaining cooperation from the police. n69 Police officers are unwilling
to crackdown on copyright infringement because they subjectively construe the language
of the Indian copyright law. n70 Following a raid against an illegal cable operator and a
smaller pirating organization, police officers took almost a year to prepare and complete a
charge sheet on a defendant, eliminating all pertinent information. n71 Copyright
infringement investigations are typically cursory, conducted without attempts to follow
leads, sources, or discover important information from shop owners who carry pirated
films. n72 The court, therefore, must dismiss copyright cases because prosecutors lack
sufficient evidence to support criminal charges against the defendant. n73 Contrary to
Indian copyright laws, police officers routinely demand copyright registration certificates
from complainants for each film found during an investigation and seize the pirated
videos. n74
[*311]
D. Obstacles Precluding Effective Enforcement of the Copyright Act of 1994
Another problem facing the Copyright Act of 1994 relates to the act's statutory
presumptions. n75 The law's stringent standard of proof requires the defendant to
establish ownership of the copyright, and requires the government to show the
defendant's "actual knowledge" of the infringement. n76 Under this standard, copyright
violators can avoid culpability by concealing evidence of their "knowledge," whereas
legitimate copyright owners have difficultly presenting evidence to meet this standard.
n77
In addition, the new law classifies copyright offenses as "cognizable," allowing police
officers to arrest a person and seize pirated products without obtaining a warrant from a
magistrate. n78 Police officers, however, often require copyright holders to make
repeated complaints. n79 After a copyright owner files a complaint, police officers will
seize only those pirated materials belonging to that individual complainant, regardless of
the presence of other obvious pirated products. n80
Although the copyright law sets forth specific provisions which assist police officers in
combating copyright piracy, problems continue to arise regarding the interpretation of
statutory [*312] language. n81 Section 64 of the Copyright Act of 1994, granting police
officers the power to seize infringed copyrighted works, authorizes "any Police officer,
not below the rank of sub-inspector to seize without warrant," "any and all copies of an
infringed work," "wherever found if he is satisfied," that it is considered an offense under
Section 63 of the Copyright Act. n82 Although the language confers broad power on any
police officer above the sub-inspector rank to seize infringed copyright works, most
officers fail to utilize their power because they believe that the copyright infringement
fails to meet the "if he is satisfied" threshold. n83 Many copyright owners complain that
the subjective standard fosters police department apathy toward copyright violators, and
stalls the effectiveness of steps taken to fight the piracy problem. n84
E. Problem of National Enforcement
No national or federal laws exist that directly address the enforcement of copyright laws.
n85 Instead, each individual Indian state deals with measures of enforcement separately.
n86 This lack of federally established copyright enforcement policy leads to inconsistent
copyright case law throughout India. n87
[*313]
F. Lack of Public Awareness
Police officers' ignorance of enforcement mechanisms for copyright protection reflects
the general public's similar lack of knowledge. n88 The responsibility to reduce piracy
lies primarily with the customer who buys and uses pirated products, and "it is the apathy
of customers and their demand for cheaper products that give rise to copyright violations.
..." n89 Customers continue to buy pirated products because they lack knowledge of the
copyright laws and the effects of infringement on the film industry. n90
G. Hollywood and Bollywood Continue to Face Serious Copyright Enforcement
Problems
The Copyright Act of 1994 elevates India's protection and obligations to levels
comparable to international practice, and removes India from the PFCL. n91 India's
failure to enforce the newly adopted laws, however, leaves artists' works unprotected. n92
As a result, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), with the USTR's
agreement, recommended that [*314] India remain on the Priority Watch List (PWL)
until its enforcement program becomes stronger. n93
IV. Strengthening India's Copyright Enforcement
The Indian Government must take the necessary steps to strengthen its enforcement
tactics because India houses the world's largest film producing industry, with a significant
role for both native and foreign film professionals. n94 More rigorous enforcement
policies will align India with sophisticated film industries around the world, and
eliminate India from the U.S. watch list. n95 The Indian Government can strengthen the
enforcement of its newly adopted copyright laws by: (1) reorganizing and educating
police departments; (2) enacting stricter enforcement legislation to reform the court
system; and (3) implementing measures to make the public more aware of copyright
problems facing India. n96
[*315]
A. Role of the Police Department
The difficulties associated with copyright enforcement stem largely from unfamiliarity
with copyright law within the Indian police force. n97 For example, many officers cannot
distinguish between duplicate and original copies, some cannot even identify machines
used to make infringed copies, and most importantly, police officers lack a general
awareness of the penalties associated with copyright violations. n98 The lack of training
in the area of copyright law is the primary cause of these problems among police
personnel. n99 Despite much debate, no clear solution exists regarding copyright
enforcement as police continue arguing over the scarcity of personnel and funds to
conduct such training. n100
Film industry and government participation could assist in resolving issues raised by
police complaints of insufficient funds [*316] and personnel for copyright training
programs. n101 The film industry and copyright societies could contribute revenues,
acquired through successful police raids, to build well-trained police teams capable of
fighting copyright infringement. n102 Additionally, the Indian Government could invest
proceeds from the entertainment duty tax revenue collected annually from the industry.
n103 To strengthen training programs, the film industry could send speakers to educate
police officers and department personnel about copyright infringement. n104 These
police training programs should focus on Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act
because it is important for officers to understand the language, "if he is satisfied," which
grants police the authority to seize the illegal copies of the copyrighted works. n105
Presently, most Indian states lack distinct copyright units within their police departments.
n106 States should inform the federal government of their extensive piracy problems and
request [*317] enactment of legislation creating new police copyright units and
improving those units already in existence. n107 Under such legislation, police
departments could specifically address copyright-related crimes and increase cooperation
with special prosecutors to lessen the delays currently associated with copyright
enforcement. n108
B. Copyright Law and Enforcement Provisions: India's TRIPS Agreement Legislation
While the Copyright Act of 1994 is substantively compatible with the TRIPS Agreement,
India failed to meet the agreement's procedural requirements because India's enforcement
policies are deficient. n109 The current copyright act requires the copyright owner to
prove the pirate's "actual knowledge" of the infringement. n110 To make India's
copyright law consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, the legislature should amend the
statutes [*318] to include presumptive language of the plaintiff's copyright ownership
and lower the standard of proof from actual knowledge of infringement to "willful"
knowledge of copyright piracy. n111 By amending the Copyright Act of 1994 to include
these new standards, police officers will no longer have to catch a pirate in the act of
broadcasting a film without a license to make an arrest, and copyright owners will receive
justice from courts without having to meet such a high burden of proof. n112
The Indian Parliament must introduce court reform to decrease the burdens, costs, and
delays facing those seeking copyright enforcement. n113 The IIPA made numerous
recommendations to the Indian Government regarding judicial reform, including dividing
cases among judges to expedite trials and move dockets more quickly. n114 In addition,
state courts [*319] could train intellectual property judges to specifically handle
copyright infringement cases. n115 Finally, the courts could increase fines imposed upon
convicted defendants. n116 Implementing these proposals would empower the courts,
deterring illegal conduct and reducing the level of piracy. n117
Although the TRIPS Agreement obligates members to establish separate judicial systems
to enforce intellectual property rights, the IIPA and Indian officials recommended that
special courts deal solely with copyright cases. n118 By establishing separate copyright
tribunals, the numerous copyright cases would move through the judicial system more
quickly and efficiently. n119 In effect, India could implement its tough copyright
provisions, deterring piracy and making India compatible with the TRIPS Agreement
while simultaneously decreasing the delays and burdens [*320] facing the current
judicial system. n120 Finally, India could modernize its enforcement policy by
establishing a centralized body dedicated to intellectual property enforcement. n121 India
does not have any national organizations devoted to enforcement, making each state
responsible for implementing its own legislation. n122 If India adopted an effective "allIndia" enforcement policy, police officers and court systems could work nationally to
fight copyright infringement, and to decrease the high level of piracy. n123
C. Public Awareness of Copyright
The Indian community suffers a serious unawareness regarding the importance of
copyright laws and the effects of infringement; therefore, the Indian Government should
take immediate measures to reach out to the general public and deter the increasing
frequency of cable and video piracy. n124 The Indian Government, local authorities,
copyright owners, copyright societies, and law enforcing authorities should launch a
massive publicity campaign to educate the average video and cable consumer about the
harms of copyright violation. n125 The Indian Government could achieve public
education through a mass media [*321] campaign. n126 The media campaign would
raise awareness that copyright infringement is a criminal offense that carries serious
penalties. n127 The campaign should also focus on identification of pirated products and
discuss the measures that should be taken upon recognition of pirated products. n128 The
Indian Government should support an anti-defamatory campaign because increasing
public awareness of the importance of copyright protection and enforcement can move
India one step forward toward the curbing of rampant copyright piracy. n129
An education campaign about copyright laws should target schools and colleges because
students are the major consumers of pirated products. n130 College curriculums should
incorporate copyright education for students entering industries facing major copyright
problems because publicly prohibiting piracy through short term avenues, such as
advertising, is insufficient. n131 Colleges and universities throughout the country should
hold lectures and demonstrations against piracy. n132
Finally, educating copyright holders, distributors, and dealers of copyrighted products on
Indian copyright laws is crucial. n133 Although many copyright owners are aware of the
Copyright Act of 1994, most are not cognizant of the act's provisions, which affect
ownership of copyrighted materials. n134 The Indian Government should train copyright
holders, copyright dealers, and distributors in copyright laws to protect copyrights
[*322] and ensure the government's success in litigating occurrences of copyright
infringement. n135
V. Conclusion
India's copyright laws have evolved significantly since the implementation of its first
copyright act in 1957. n136 Due to both national and international pressure, India has
become a leading nation in copyright laws as a result of the stringent copyright provisions
enacted most recently in the Copyright Act of 1994. n137 Although India took great
measures to modernize its copyright laws to be more compatible with the entertainment
industries of developed nations, such as the United States, it still does not satisfy the
TRIPS Agreement requirements. n138 For India to become a TRIPS-compatible nation,
to prevent U.S. scrutiny, and to lift the current U.S. trade sanctions, India must strengthen
its copyright enforcement tactics. n139 Without immediate measures, the world's largest
film industry faces a serious threat to its existence. n140
Legal Topics:
For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics:
Copyright LawForeign & International ProtectionsMultilateral TreatiesCopyright
LawForeign & International ProtectionsProtected RightsCopyright LawCivil
Infringement ActionsBurdens of Proof
FOOTNOTES:
n1. See K.M. Thomas & Anupama Chopra, Cable Piracy: Raiders of the Big Screen,
India Today, July 27, 1998, Cinema, at 74 (introducing piracy problem facing Indian film
industry), available at 1998 WL 2084306.
n2. Id. (indicating large number of Indians frequent movie theaters).
n3. Id. (observing decline in Indian moviegoers).
n4. Id. (describing most recent incident with release of new movie).
n5. Id. (providing reason for Indian public's lack of interest in frequenting movie
theaters).
n6. See Aseem Chhabra, Bollywood Confidential: Bollywood Films Sing and Dance
Their Way to Center Stage, Boston Globe, Mar. 10, 2002, at L13 (pointing to number of
films produced in India). India produces more than 800 films annually, an average of
more than two movies a day. Id. Hollywood, in contrast, only produced 260 films in
2001. Id. The 1990 Guinness Book of Records stated that Bollywood produced 948 films,
more films than any other country in the world in that year. Id. See also Film Industry:
Conclusion, India Infoline Sector Reports (noting size of Indian film industry), at
http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/mefi/ch07.html (last modified Dec. 14, 2002); Film
Industry - From Box Office to Doldrums?, News-India Times, v. 28, n. 35, Aug. 28, 1998
at 51 (stating Indian film industry largest in world), available at 1998 WL 11449468;
N.K. Nair et al., Study on Copyright Piracy in India, Sponsored by Ministry of Human
Resources Development Government of India (observing India's force in copyright field),
at http://www.education.nic.in/htmlweb/cr piracy.study/cpr8.htm (last visited Feb. 5,
2002). India is powerful in the copyright field because of the country's rich cultural
heritage, which is enjoyed by the international community. Nair, supra. India provides the
world film market with an excess of 600 films per year. Id. See also Sally D. Goll, Indian
TV Official Expects Court to Intervene in Copyright Debate, Asian Wall St. J., Apr. 14,
1995 at J.7 (discussing international enjoyment of Indian films), available at 1995 WLWSJA 2139322. India's film industry distributed films both nationally and
internationally through broadcasters. Id. For example, Hong Kong's Star TV and
Mumbai's Zee TV launched a Hindi channel called Zee Cinema in China. Id.
n7. See Chander M. Lall, The Indian Film Industry and Copyright Laws, Counsel for
Motion Picture Association-International (discussing threat to today's Indian film
industry), at http://www.filmpiracy.com/artc.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2003). The Indian
film industry mainly battles cable and VCR piracy, however, piracy extends to other
forms such as laserdisc and video compact disc (VCD) with the development of VCDs
and DVDs. Id. See also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (setting forth types of piracy prevalent
in film industry). Video piracy takes place when a pirate transfers a film to a video
cassette without proper authorization from the producer. Id. India faces two types of
video piracy. Id. The first type occurs when the producer has not sold the film's video
rights, however, video cassettes are available on the market for sale or renting. Id. The
second type of video piracy arises when a party legally contracts to purchase the rights;
however, a third party, who is not a party to the contract (usually pirates), makes and sells
the video cassette on the market. Id. Cable piracy, on the other hand, is the unauthorized
transmission of films through a cable network. Id. Presenting a film over a cable network
requires authorization from the copyright holder. Id. See also US Puts India Under Trade
Dept Scrutiny List, rediff.com Business News (May 2, 2000) [hereinafter US Trade
Scrutiny] (noting piracy affects motion picture markets), at
http://www.rediff.com/business/2000/may/02us.htm. Widespread copyright infringement
detrimentally affects all film industry segments: theater, home video, and television. Id.
Piracy is the greatest threat facing copyright industries such as film and television. See
also Indian Intellectual Property Law Resources, Copyright Industries: Threat to
Copyright Industries (Oct. 2002) (discussing piracy as greatest challenge to all copyright
industries), at http://www.iprlawindia.org.
n8. India Faces Uphill Struggle in Video Piracy Battle, The Economic Times, Aug. 23,
2001 [hereinafter India's Uphill Struggle] (indicating piracy's negative effect on India's
economy), available at http://www.economictimes.com/today/23tech14.htm; see Nair,
supra note 6, at ch. II (noting copyright protection emerged as major factor in
international relations). For example, trade relations between China and the United States
significantly deteriorated over issues relating to the protection of intellectual property
rights. Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II. The United States lost US$ 2 billion that year due to
China's failure to protect intellectual property rights, and therefore, the United States
maintained that China was one of the worst intellectual property rights violators. Id. The
United States' assessment of its problem with China became particularly dangerous when
trade groups petitioned for a complete end to trade relations with China. Id. See also
India Prepared to Improve Copyright Protection, Music & Copyright, Oct. 13, 1993
(explaining importance of amending India's copyright laws to strengthen relationship
with United States), available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, World News File; N. Vidyasagar,
Pirates Hijack Entertainment, Software Sectors, The Times of India, Mar. 30, 2000
(discussing obstacles to international growth of India's film industry), at
http://www.timesofindia.com. Associate Director of US-India Business Counsel Kate
Sherwood stated, "piracy in India is pinching. For both India and U.S. to gain from
cooperation in entertainment and software, the issue of protecting intellectual property
rights needs prompt attention." Vidyasagar, supra. She indicated that piracy is a
"stumbling block" to the U.S. entertainment companies that hesitate to invest in the
Indian film industry because India lacks copyright protection. Id. See also Nair, supra
note 6, at ch. I (discussing copyright piracy worldwide crime affecting international
relations). A large number of internationally traded copyrighted materials demonstrated
that globalization impacted the copyright area. Id. Recent technological advancements
provided various mediums for the free flow of copyrighted materials, which enabled
piracy to assume an international dimension. Id. Protection of copyright materials,
therefore, is not only a priority on India's national agenda but it also emerged as an
important factor governing international relations. Id.
n9. See India's Uphill Struggle, supra note 8 (stating Indian film industry's statistical
revenue losses due to piracy); see also Indian Intellectual Property Law Resources, Piracy
Hunts Entertainment World (July 30, 2000) (providing approximate losses in film
industry), at http://www.iprlawindia.org. The Indian Film Federation estimated that the
film industry loses one crore rupees daily due to piracy. Piracy Hunts Entertainment
World, supra. In 2000 alone, the U.S. motion picture industry faced an estimated annual
loss of $ 66 million due to audio-visual piracy in India. US Trade Scrutiny, supra note 7.
Copyright piracy causes economic losses to a country because it adversely affects all
those who invested money into the industry, decreasing the copyright materials'
availability to consumers. Nair, supra note 6, at ch. I.
n10. See Lall, supra note 7 (discussing problems with India's enforcement of copyright
laws). Although India enacted stronger copyright laws to keep up with the technological
advances and enforcement has been somewhat effective, a great deal more must be done
to ensure compliance. Lall, supra note 7. See also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. I (noting
copyright piracy widespread problem despite stringent copyright laws).
n11. See infra Parts II-IV (detailing history and problems with India's copyright laws).
n12. See infra Part II (outlining Indian copyright law history).
n13. See infra Part III (examining problems facing intellectual property right protection
in India). See also David Legard, IIPA Estimates U.S. Global Piracy Losses at $ 9.2
Billion in 2002, NetWorldFusion (Feb. 14, 2003) [hereinafter IIPA 2002 U.S. Global
Piracy Estimate] (noting 2002 statistics for U.S. economic losses because of foreign
copyright breaches), at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0214iipaestim.html. The
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) recommended that India, among other
countries, be placed on the U.S. priority watch list because the United States suffered
economic losses from copyright piracy. Id.
n14. See infra Part IV (suggesting improvements in India's enforcement policy). See also
Ralph Cunningham, India's Piracy Crackdown, PTC Forum: Publications (Sept. 2001)
(setting forth several weakness in Indian system identified with copyright piracy), at
http://www.ptcforum.org/ARTICLE%2020059.htm.
n15. See infra Parts II-IV (concluding India must take measures to minimize high level of
piracy facing film industry).
n16. See P. Narayanan, Copyright and Industrial Designs 5 (Eastern Law Private Ltd
1995) (1986) (discussing Indian copyright law history); see also Nair, supra note 6, at ch.
II (explaining British copyright law's impact on Indian copyright law). When Britain
enacted the Copyright Act of 1911, the act automatically applied in India because of
British rule in India. Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II. India enacted its own copyright laws in
1957 following its independence from Britain. Id. The Indian Copyright Act became
effective in 1958. Id.
n17. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (detailing copyright law world history); see
also Copyright, The U.K. Patent Office (discussing history of U.K. copyright law), at
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/history/ (last visited Mar. 28, 2003). The 1709 Statute of
Anne was the first time that an act of Parliament protected copyrights in books and other
writings. Copyright, supra. Before the passage of the Statute of Anne, disputes over the
publishing rights could only be enforced by common law. Id. See also Robert A. Gorman
& Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright: Cases and Materials 2 (Robert C. Clark et al. eds., 6th
ed. 2002) (outlining British copyright law history). The Statute of Anne became the
foundation for all subsequent copyright legislation in England and abroad. Id.
n18. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (stating reason for late enactment of copyright
laws).
n19. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16 at 5 (explaining effect of printing press on creative
works); see also Gorman & Ginsburg, supra note 17, at 2 (noting piracy linked to printing
press invention); Copyright, supra note 17 (discussing origin of copyright concerns).
Before the 15th century and the invention of the printing press, society lacked concern
over copyright protection because manuscript copying was an exceptionally slow process
completed mainly by monks. Id. Britain, in addition, limited copying to religious works
for religious orders and European royal courts. Id. The illiteracy rate in India limiting
manuscript access to privileged members of society effected copyright protection. Id. See
also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (detailing copyright origin). Gutenberg's printing press
invention in the fifteenth century lead to the first copyright infringement problems. Id.
The printing press increased the volume of both book printing and distribution, leading to
unfair practices such as unauthorized printing by competing printers. Id.
n20. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (setting forth British response to copyright
infringement); see also Copyright, supra note 17 (detailing British Copyright Act
history). The Statute of Anne, the first Copyright Act in the world to deal with copyright
infringement, introduced two new ideas: the author as copyright owner and a fixed
protection term for published works. Copyright, supra note 17. See also Nair, supra note
6, ch. II (discussing birth of statutory copyright protection). Although piracy prevailed at
the end of the fifteenth century, society did not recognize piracy as a problem until 1710,
when Britain enacted the Statute of Anne. Nair, supra note 6, ch. II. The statute provided
authors with reprinting rights for a certain number of years. Id.
n21. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (outlining Statute of Anne provision protecting
authors); see also Gorman & Ginsburg, supra note 17, at 2 (setting forth original Statute
of Anne provisions).
n22. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (discussing protection terms).
n23. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5 (detailing changes made to Statute of Anne).
The amendments protected works of engravings, sculpture, dramatic works, and lectures.
Id. See also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (explaining limited copyright protection granted
by Statue of Anne). The 1710 statute protected an author's rights only if the author
decided to reprint the book. Id. The statute excluded other creative works such as
paintings and drawings. Id.
n24. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 5-6 (outlining further developments in British
Copyright Act). The provisions of the Copyright Act of 1842 covered all published
books, including written dramatic works and sheets of music, and extended the copyright
term to the "life of the author plus seven years or forty-two years from the date of first
publication whichever period was longer." Id.
n25. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (stating importance of creative labor
protection); see also Indian Intellectual Property Law Resources, Copyright: What is
Copyright? (pointing to copyright justification), at http://www.iprlawindia.org (last
modified Feb. 26, 2003). The basis for copyright lies in the labor theory of property,
propounded by 18th century British philosopher, John Locke. What is Copyright?, supra.
This theory rests on the assumption that a person can own property only if he adds value
to it by his own labor, "the things for which copyright subsists emerge from ideas,
concepts, thoughts, etc. that are common to all ..." Id. No person, therefore, should be
allowed to appropriate the fruits of another's labor to himself. Id. The difference between
Locke's theory and copyright protection lies in Locke's justification of property on the
basis of physical labor, while, copyright is justified on the grounds of mental labor. Id.
n26. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (explaining British view on various forms of
copyright infringement). Unauthorized translations, dramatic versions of the author's
piece, public performances of the work, cinematographic versions, broadcasts or
television performances became crucial to authors. Id.
n27. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (setting forth subsequent amendments of
British copyright law); see also Copyright, supra note 17 (discussing changes made by
Copyright Act of 1911).
n28. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (detailing changes made by new copyright
law); see also What is Copyright?, supra note 25 (outlining new provisions of Copyright
Act of 1911).
n29. See Gorman & Ginsburg, supra note 17, at 3 (stating British copyright law continues
to change).
n30. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (discussing British influence over Indian history);
see also Sundara Rajan, Article, Moral Rights in the Public Domain: Copyright Materials
in the Works of Indian National Poet C Subramania Bharati, 2001 Sing. J. Legal Stud.
161 (2001) (detailing India's and international community's copyright law history). Indian
copyright law originates from British copyright law because India was part of the British
Commonwealth. Rajan, supra. See also What is Copyright?, supra note 25 (detailing
Indian copyright law history). Copyright protection took place in India when it adopted
the Copyright Act of 1914, which is an extension of Britain's Copyright Act of 1911. Id.
n31. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (noting Indian copyright law's beginnings).
India did not adopt its first comprehensive copyright law until its independence from
Britain. Id.
n32. See What is Copyright?, supra note 25 (indicating first Indian copyright act adopted
in 1957); see also P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 6 (describing India's changes to British
copyright law). For example, the Copyright Act of 1957 calls for a copyright office under
the control of the Registrar of Copyrights to monitor the registration of books and other
works of art. P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 7. The Indian legislators created the
Copyright Board to deal with copyright disputes. Id.
n33. See P. Narayanan, supra note 16, at 9-10 (summarizing amendments made to 1957
copyright law in 1983).
n34. See Rajan, supra note 30 (providing reasons for amendments to India's copyright
laws). Independent India adopted a series of amendments in 1984 to include several
important factors to continue its membership in the Berne Copyright Union (BC) and the
Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), which required levels of copyright protection
not provided for in the Copyright Act of 1914. Id. See also P. Narayanan, supra note 16,
at 9-10 (detailing revisions made to conform to BC and UCC). To secure a degree of
uniformity among nations in the protection of an author's and artist's rights over their
work, representatives of several states met in 1886 to frame the BC. Id. at 310. The
Convention's purpose was to protect the rights of authors and their literary and artistic
works. Id. The UCC is another convention to which India, the United States, and several
other countries are parties. Id. The UCC and BC required countries to provide the same
treatment to other countries' materials as given to a country's nationals. Id. The UCC,
however, also requires countries to follow certain minimum protection standards;
however, the Convention fails to detail the standards. Id.
n35. See Kala Thairani, How Copyright Works in Practice 14 (Popular Prakashan PVT.
Limited 1996) [hereinafter Thairani, Copyright in Practice] (setting forth international
criticisms against 1983 amendment). The World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) conducted a detailed study of India's piracy problem at the international level. Id.
Two worldwide forums convened in 1981 and 1983 to discuss piracy of copyrighted
works. Id. Both meetings urged the Indian Government to take stern measures against
copyright infringement, with an emphasis on penal action against piracy. Id. The WIPO
especially urged government authorities to review current domestic law and effectively
deal with piracy by taking special measures to enforce the copyright infringement
provisions detailed in the copyright law. Id.
n36. See Kala Thairani, Copyright: The Indian Experience 57 (Allied Publishers Private
Limited 1987) [hereinafter Thairani, Indian Experience] (stating criticism against 1983
amendment to copyright act). The provisions of the 1983 amendment failed to combat
piracy, which had become a prevalent problem in India. Id.
n37. Id. at 58 (explaining governmental reaction to Copyright Act of 1983); see also P.
Naryanan, supra note 16, at 10 (discussing Copyright Act of 1984 focusing on piracy
problem). See generally the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984, Act No.14 of 1984,
reproduced in P. Narayanan, Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs, 2d ed. (Calcutta:
Eastern Law House, 1995), at 481-510 [hereinafter Copyright Act of 1984].
n38. See P. Naryanan, supra note 16, at 10 (outlining main provision of Copyright Act of
1984); see also Film Industry: Copyright Laws in India, India Infoline Sector Reports
[hereinafter Copyright Laws in India] (addressing 1984 amendment to Copyright Act of
1957), at http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/mefi/ch06.html (last modified Dec. 14,
2002). The 1984 amendment addressed the piracy issue, "the Statement of Objects and
Reasons to the amendment acknowledged piracy as a 'global problem due to rapid
advances in technology'." Copyright Laws in India, supra. See also Lall, supra note 7
(citing provisions of 1984 amendment relevant to film industry). The 1984 amendment
specifically amended Act 65 of the copyright act. Id. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons provision of the amendment recognized the massive worldwide reproduction,
distribution, and sale of film video cassettes and television programs without
compensation to the authors, artists, publishers, and producers related to the works. Id.
Furthermore, the amendment's language recognized the losses to film producers and other
copyright owners caused by piracy, and therefore concluded by stating that, "it is
proposed to amend the Copyright Act, 1957, suitably to combat effectively the piracy
prevalent in the country." Id. The changes incorporated into the 1984 amendment
included: harsher punishments for copyright infringement, provisions making the
amendment specifically applicable to video films, and statutory obligations required of
producers of records and video films to safeguard the copyrighted material. Id.
n39. See Special 301 on Intellectual Property, 10 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA), at 761 (May 5,
1993), LEXIS, Nexis Library, ITR File [hereinafter Special 301 on IP] (discussing
problems with India's copyright laws). Despite numerous amendments to the copyright
laws, India fails to effectively protect intellectual property rights. Id.
n40. See USTR Fact Sheet on Special 301 Findings, 13 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA), at 17 D82, (May 1, 1996), LEXIS, Nexis Library, ITR File [hereinafter USTR Fact Sheet]
(noting reason for India's placement on foreign priority list). India was placed on the
"priority foreign country" watch list (PFCL) for the first time in 1991. Id. The United
States places a country on the PFCL if the following requirements are met: (1) the
country has "onerous and egregious acts, policies, and practices which have the greatest
adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products;" and (2) the country is
not "engaged in good faith negotiations or making significant progress in negotiations to
address these problems." Id. By 1992, India solved problems in trademark, copyright
protection and enforcement, and access to the motion pictures industries. Id. Serious
problems, however, especially with patent protection, continued to exist on a large scale.
Id. India, therefore, stayed on the U.S. PFCL in 1992. Id. In February 1992, the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted a 301 investigation and found that India's
policies were unreasonable and insufficient with respect to the patent, copyright, and
trademark protection. Id. The United States, in 1993, stated that the Indian Parliament
failed to enact adequate amendments to its copyright legislation to delete India from the
list. Id.
n41. See International Intellectual Property Alliance, Description of IIPA [hereinafter
IIPA Description] (describing International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) goal
regarding international copyright enforcement), at http://www.iipa.com/aboutiipa.html
(last visited Feb. 13, 2003). The IIPA works closely with the USTR in publishing the
annual "Special 301" report. Id. The IIPA's goal is to ensure that copyright infringing
countries establish a "legal and enforcement regime for copyright that not only deters
piracy, but that also fosters technological and cultural developments ..." Id. The IIPA
reviews whether a foreign country's acts, policies, or practices provide inadequate
protection to U.S. intellectual property rights abroad. See id.
n42. See Intellectual Property: Baucus Calls for Four Countries to be Named under
Special Provision of 1988 Trade Act, 8 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA), at 626 (April 24, 1991),
LEXIS, Nexis Library, ITR File [hereinafter Baucus] (explaining Special 301 provision
requirements).
n43. See id.; see also USTR Fact Sheet, supra note 40 (discussing Special 301 provisions
relating to "priority foreign countries").
n44. See Baucus, supra note 42 (setting forth U.S. statutory requirements).
n45. See Baucus, supra note 42 (stating consequences of failing to comply with U.S.
requests to cease piracy); see also International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2002
Special 301 Report: India 126, 130 [hereinafter 2002 301 Report] (explaining U.S.
General Systems of Preferences (GSP)), at
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2002/2002SPEC301INDIA.pdf (last visited Mar. 28, 2003).
India participates in the GSP program, which is a trade program created by the United
States to offer preferential trade benefits to eligible beneficiary countries. 2002 301
Report, supra, at 139. For a particular country to receive preferential status, it must
provide "adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights." Id. According
to the 2002 Special 301 Report, India caused US$ 345.4 million in losses to the United
States in 2001 because of piracy. Id. India, therefore, will not receive favorable treatment
if it continues to fail to meet the intellectual property rights protection required by the
United States. Id. See also 1999 Foreign Trade Barriers Report: India 175 [hereinafter
1999 Foreign Trade Report] (detailing U.S. sanctions imposed on India), at
www.ustr.gov/reports/nte/1999/india.pdf (last visited Mar. 28, 2003). In April 1992,
President Clinton suspended India from receiving duty-free privileges under the GSP for
US$ 60 million in trade. Id. at 180. The suspension applied principally to
pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and related products. Id. In June 1992, the United States
withheld approximately US$ 80 million in certain chemicals from India to increase the
trade for which GSP was suspended. Id.
n46. See Intellectual Property: Indian Government to Seek Copyright Enforcement Units,
11 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA), at 22 D-10 (June 1, 1994), LEXIS, Nexis Library, ITR File
(outlining new provisions to Copyright Act to be adopted by Indian states); see also
Intellectual Property Rights in India, LinkExchange [hereinafter IPR-LinkExchange]
(discussing U.S. influence in India's implementation of Copyright Act of 1994), at
http://www.indiaonestop.com/markets-intellectual-prop-rights.htm (last visited Mar. 28,
2003). India strengthened its copyright law in May 1994 as a result of domestic industry
and U.S. pressure. IPR-LinkExchange, supra. The provisions of the new copyright law
reflect the copyright objectives stated in the Berne Convention, to which India is a party,
making the country's laws more compatible with those of the international community.
Id. See also 1999 Foreign Trade Report, supra note 45, at 181 (discussing India's
implementation of strengthened copyright law).
n47. See Intellectual Property Rights in India, Embassy of India, Washington, D.C.
Policy Statements [hereinafter IPR-Embassy India] (discussing India's improvements in
intellectual property rights protection), at http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/ipr/ipr
2000.htm (last visited Mar. 28, 2003). India's new copyright law is more compatible with
the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS). Id. See also IPR Law in India, National Association of Software and Service
Companies (examining 1994 amendments to Copyright Act of 1957), at
http://www.nasscom.org/business in india/ipr law.asp (last visited Mar. 28, 2003). For the
first time, Indian copyright law explains: (1) the rights of the copyright holder; (2) the
rules of software rentals; (3) the user's right to make copies of the copyrighted materials;
and (4) the heavy punishments and fines imposed for infringing on copyrighted materials.
Id. See also Intellectual Property: Laws & Procedure in India (describing newly enacted
copyright act provisions), at http://www. singhania.com/ip/page01 03.html (last visited
Mar. 28, 2003). Both criminal and civil proceedings are available to the owner to punish
the copyright law violator. Id. India increased the severity of its criminal punishment in
the amended legislation by stating that, "the infringement of copyright is a cognizable
offence and is punishable with imprisonment for a period extending from six months to
three years accompanied with or without a fine ranging from 50,000 to 2,000,000 rupees
(approximately US$ 200 to US$ 8,000)." Id. In civil courts, the remedies now available
to an owner of a copyright include injunction and damages for lost profits. Id. See also
Thairani, Copyright in Practice, supra note 35, at 18-19 (summarizing performers' rights
protection provisions). The 1994 amendment provided performers' rights protection for
the time, which covers "any visual or acoustic presentation made live by one or more
performers." The law's definition provision, Section 2(qq), provides protection to a
variety of performers. Id. Furthermore, the copyright law not only requires the
performer's consent to make audio or audiovisual recordings of live performances, but
also in communicating the performance to the public. Id.
n48. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (noting establishment of advisory council to review
copyright enforcement).
n49. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (observing improvements in police enforcement).
n50. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (setting forth new legislation focused on combating
piracy).
n51. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (explaining Indian Government's recommendation to
states).
n52. See Thomas & Chopra, supra note 1, at 74 (discussing cable piracy problems facing
Indian film industry because of minimal enforcement); see also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. I
(noting problems with piracy prevail because lack of copyright violation enforcement);
see also International Intellectual Property Alliance, 1999 301 Report: India [hereinafter
1999 301 Report] (stating court system contributes to copyright enforcement problem), at
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/1999/rbc india 301 99.html (last visited Feb. 12, 2003).
Although the Copyright Act of 1994 has tough criminal provisions, IIPA members
reported few convictions because of the weak court system. 1999 301 Report, supra. See
also Anti-piracy Law Enforcement Key for Indian Entertainment Industry, Confederation
of Indian Industry News (discussing issues facing Indian entertainment industry
preventing film industry from achieving potential growth), at
http://www.ciionline.org/news/pressrel/2001/Nov/6Nov01.htm (last visited July 10,
2002).
n53. See Bollywood to Protest Against Cable Piracy on August 11, Rediff On The Net
Business News, July 27, 1998 [hereinafter Bollywood Protest] (noting serious problems
facing film industry), at http://www.rediff.com/business/1998/jul/27film.htm. Although
Maharashtra had 140 movie theaters, only 106 are functioning today. Id.
n54. See Thomas & Chopra, supra note 1, at 74 (stressing high piracy level in 1998).
Bhatt's "Dushman" was shown on cable TV only four days after its release in theaters. Id.
The popular movie "Major Saab," starring Amitabh Bachan and Ajay Devgan, was
shown on cable television a week after its release in theaters, and an underworld saga,
"Satya," was shown one day before it "hit" the theaters. Id.
n55. See Lall, supra note 7 (discussing easy accessibility of pirated videos throughout
India). Pirated pre-release videos, and not VCDS, are available in major cities well before
the local theatrical release on cable television. Id. See also Lall, supra note 7 (stating
number of illegal cable operators mushroomed over last five years); Thomas & Chopra,
supra note 1, at 74 (indicating Hollywood faces same piracy problems as Bollywood).
Illegal cable operators have not spared Hollywood. Thomas & Chopra, supra note 1, at
74. For example, "Titanic" was shown extensively without authorization from its
copyright owners and pirates accessed the popular film "Godzilla" only one month after
U.S. theaters screened the movie. Id. See also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. II (discussing
losses to producers, theatre owners, and government because of piracy). The Indian
Government loses money because pirating activities prohibit the government from
receiving entertainment tax revenue from theatres as well as excise and sales tax from
film production and sale. Id.
n56. See Lall, supra note 7 (discussing copyright enforcement problem in courts); see
also IPR-Embassy India, supra note 47 (stating concern with judiciary despite
improvements); US Asked to Put India on 'watch list' for Piracy, The Hindustan Times,
Feb. 25, 2000 (highlighting problem with Indian court system), at
www.hindustantimes.com.
n57. See Lall, supra note 7 (acknowledging Indian High Courts' effective enforcement of
copyright laws); see also Nayak Banned on Cable TV, The Hindustan Times, Sept. 7,
2001 (setting forth Delhi High Court decision against copyright violators), at
http://64.225.143.242/nonfram/070901/dtlnat29.asp. The Delhi High Court restrained
cable operators in the country from exhibiting the latest film, "Nayak." Nayak Banned on
Cable TV, supra. Justice Vijender Jain stated that cable operators, their franchises,
distributors, assignees, and any other person would be restrained from airing the movie
on their network until the next date of hearing. Id.
n58. See Lall, supra note 7 (pointing to level of enforcement problem).
n59. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 133-34 (setting forth problems with Indian
courts hindering proper copyright enforcement); International Intellectual Property
Alliance, 2001 Special 301 Report: India 385, 388 [hereinafter 2001 301 Report]
(highlighting enforcement problems in India's criminal court system), at
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2001/2001SPEC301INDIA.pdf (last visited Mar. 27, 2003);
1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (discussing reasons for problems with court system). The
IIPA identified numerous procedural hurdles that unreasonably hampered Indian courts'
ability to close cases; however, the Indian Government took no action to remove these
hurdles. 2001 301 Report, supra. The court system remains exceedingly slow and
backlogged because of these procedural hurdles, which prevents early intervention
against piracy. Id. See also Lall, supra note 7 (explaining enforcement problems because
of overburdened criminal court system). A criminal case can take up to seven years to
complete, making strong mandatory sentencing provisions illusory. Id.
n60. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59 (explaining that police hamper proper copyright
enforcement).
n61. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59 (focusing on problems facing copyright owners
seeking enforcement in criminal system).
n62. See International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2000 Special Report India
[hereinafter India 2000 Report] (discussing problems with court system incompatible
with international agreements), at http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2000/INDIA 2000.pdf (last
visited Mar. 28, 2003). TRIPS articles are violated because India's court procedures are
extremely burdensome, causing massive delays in bringing criminal and civil cases to
final judgment. Id. See also Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization,
Annex 1C, Legal Instruments - Results of the Uruguay Round vol. 31, 33 I.L.M 81
(1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement], available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop
e/trips e/t agm4 e/htm (last visited Mar. 28, 2003).
n63. See TRIPS Agreement, supra note 62 (outlining TRIPS Agreement intellectual
property enforcement provisions). Article 41(2) mandates that, "procedures concerning
the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable." Id. The courts
should not be unnecessarily complicated, costly, entail unreasonable time limits, or
unwarranted delays. Id. Article 42 also states that, "parties shall be allowed to be
represented by independent legal counsel, and procedures shall not impose overly
burdensome requirements concerning mandatory personal appearances. All parties to the
procedures shall be duly entitled to substantiate their claims and to present all relevant
evidence." Id. Article 61 states that, "remedies available shall include imprisonment
and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide deterrent, consistently with the level of
penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity." Id.
n64. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. I (discussing adverse affect of piracy on investors).
n65. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 390 (noting different strategy used by film
industries to ensure enforcement). The criminal cases' record has been appalling, despite
a strong law with severe penalties. Id. at 389. The number of reported convictions in the
film industry did not exceed four and little change occurred in the statistics in 2000. Id.
n66. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 390 (discussing film industry's success after
moving to civil litigation strategy). The report states that the MPA filed eight civil actions
against various large cable networks in the country. Id. The injunctions cover cable
networks in over forty-five cities, which travel over to eight million cable homes. Id.
n67. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 391 (pointing to problems hindering proper
enforcement of copyright violations even in civil courts). Although the copyright owners
obtained injunctions against cable pirates through the civil courts, civil cases take even
longer than criminal cases to obtain a judgment. Id. It takes approximately five years
from an adjudication of a contempt citation to actual enforcement. Id.
n68. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 391 (detailing difficulties facing film
industry in civil courts).
n69. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (outlining problems with Indian police
department). Not only are police officers mainly responsible for leaked information, but
they are also slow to act against pirates because they lack copyright education. Id.
n70. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (discussing role of police under Copyright Act of
1994). Section 64 of the Copyright Act "authorizes any police officer, not below the rank
of 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." Id. Many police
officers do not utilize their power to seize the pirated products when faced with infringed
copies of films because of the clause, "if he is satisfied." Id. Generally, the police officers
find that infringement cases have not been extended the same high priority as other
criminal cases. Id.
n71. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (explaining police officers' lack of
knowledge in properly filling out charge sheets).
n72. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 390-91 (noting underlying police
corruption). For example, in 2000, a successful pirate raid of shop owners who were a
part of a larger network supplying pirate products throughout Northern India and
Pakistan, turned unsuccessful when the shop owners protested against the police raid and
the police returned 40,000 seized VCDs. Id. The police openly conspired with the
shopkeepers by hiding the pirated goods to ensure that seizure of these goods could not
take place by local commissioners and the court. Id.
n73. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388-89 (describing impediments to proper
copyright enforcement in criminal courts).
n74. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (explaining Indian police officers'
understanding of copyright laws and issues).
n75. See Lall, supra note 7 (recognizing statutory problems deterring effective copyright
enforcement); 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (listing procedural hurdles faced by Indian
court system). The current Indian Copyright Act's "lack of presumptions with respect to
ownership and substantive rights, and a need to prove actual knowledge must be
remedied in amendments for India's copyright law to be fully TRIPS-compatible." Id.
n76. See Lall, supra note 7 (detailing exact problem with statutory language of Copyright
Act of 1994).
n77. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (considering consequences of stringent
standard of proof).
n78. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (discussing police officers' duty in
copyright enforcement).
n79. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (discussing police procedural hurdles
hampering proper copyright enforcement); see also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII
(evaluating role of police and problems facing copyright holders). Police officers blame
the copyright owners for lack of copyright enforcement because these individuals do not
file a formal complaint with the court and/or fail to produce necessary proof or
documentation to the court. Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII.
n80. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 59, at 388 (exposing police corruption and lack of
police enforcement).
n81. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (examining role of police in copyright piracy
problems).
n82. See Copyright Act of 1984, supra note 37, at 506 (setting forth language of Section
64); see also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (highlighting problematic language in
provision).
n83. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (stating effect of subjective language in statute).
n84. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (noting copyright owner's concern with effects of
subjective standard on police enforcement).
n85. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (declaring need for enforcement on federal level
to deter piracy problem).
n86. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (explaining method used to enforce copyright
laws in India); Arvind Kumar, Problems of Copyright Enforcement in India, Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights, v. 2 (Jan. 1997) (explaining effect on police of lack of
federal law dealing with copyright enforcement), available at
http://itt.nissat.tripod.com/itt9702/copyright.htm. The police are unwilling to conduct
raids outside their jurisdiction because no effective "all-Indian" enforcement policy
exists, which slows down the process of adequate copyright enforcement. Kumar, supra.
n87. See 2001 301 Report, supra note 45, at 388 (suggesting national coordination of
enforcement among Indian states).
n88. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (noting public is not well educated in copyright
laws); see also Kumar, supra note 86 (stating lack of awareness among academics
regarding copyright infringement). KS Padmanabhan of East Books believes that,
"several academics are unaware of the implications of copyright infringement." Kumar,
supra note 86.
n89. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (observing role of consumers in copyright
problems).
n90. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (offering statistics indicating lack of copyright
law awareness among population). The survey indicated about sixty-one percent of those
who responded lacked a general awareness of copyright laws and the problems facing
India regarding video and cable piracy. Id.
n91. See IPR-LinkExchange, supra note 46 (detailing strengths of India's newly adopted
laws); see also Nair, supra note 6, at ch. I (noting Indian copyright laws comparable to
developed countries); IPR-Embassy India, supra note 47 (summarizing copyright
protection provided by 1994 amendment); supra notes 40-43 and accompanying text
(explaining PFCL and reason why India listed).
n92. See The MPA's Strong Arm in Asia, Connect Magazine (stating Hollywood's
economic losses in India), at
http://www.connectmagazine.com/JULY1998/Julyhtml/July983LowellMPA.html (July
1998). Lowell B. Strong, Vice President and Director of the Asia Pacific Anti-Piracy
Operations for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPA), estimated that
Hollywood loses approximately US$ 50-60 million per year in India due to India's high
level of video and cable piracy. Id. See generally 2001 301 Report, supra note 59
(explaining problems with India's enforcement policy).
n93. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (outlining history of U.S.-Indian relations);
India 2000 Report, supra note 62 (stating effects of Indian copyright enforcement
problem). In 2000, the United States moved India from the PFCL to the Priority Watch
List (PWL); however, the United States continued to place trade sanctions on India
because of India's continued inability to deter piracy. India 2000 Report, supra note 62.
n94. See Film Industry: Conclusion, supra note 6 (noting India must protect intellectual
property through copyright laws); see also Film Industry - From Box Office to
Doldrums?, supra note 6 (stating size of India's film industry); Goll, supra note 6 (setting
forth debate over rights to distribute films). By the end of the 20th century India regularly
produced more than 800 film titles a year. Goll, supra note 6. At the same time, the
country planned to establish thirty new channels worldwide within a year. Id. As a result,
fierce debate arose over film distribution rights. Id. See generally Nair, supra note 6
(explaining importance of strengthening India's enforcement methods).
n95. See India 2000 Report, supra note 62 (offering reason for India's placement on
watch list); see also 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (implying copyright enforcement
improvements will remove India from U.S. watch lists). In 1991, the USTR placed India
on the PFCL because of India's problems in the patent, trademark, and copyright areas.
1999 301 Report, supra note 52. When India enacted amendments to its copyright laws,
however, the USTR recommended that India be moved from the more stringent PFCL to
the less harsh PWL. Id.
n96. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII-X (setting forth solution to police department
problems); see also 2001 301 Report, supra note 59 (suggesting court reform solution to
copyright problem); Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII-X (discussing public awareness
problem and solution); Cunningham, supra note 14 (recognizing results of police
cooperation). On July 11th and 12th of 2001, with police assistance, successful copyright
raids were conducted, which led to extensive seizures of illegal copyrighted materials as
well as the arrest of a number of copyright violators. Cunningham, supra note 14.
n97. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII-X (discussing police contribution to copyright
enforcement problems). A majority of the states admitted that their police personnel were
unfamiliar with the country's copyright laws. Id. See also 2001 301 Report, supra note 59
(noting police personnel's lack of basic knowledge and sensitivity to intellectual property
issues). See also IPR Law in India, supra note 47 (outlining initiatives to deter piracy). To
deter and discourage piracy, the National Association of Software and Service
Companies (NASSCOM) provided copyright law awareness and training programs for
officers and law enforcement personnel. Id.
n98. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII, X (detailing police officers' lack of knowledge
in copyright infringement area); see also supra note 71 and accompanying text (noting
result of uneducated police departments); supra note 74 and accompanying text
(discussing police officers' low level of copyright law understanding and associated
problems).
n99. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII, X (discussing problems training police).
According to Nair's survey, thirteen states lacked arrangements for training their police
personnel to comply with the newly implemented Copyright Act of 1994 amendments.
Id. See also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45 (outlining key changes reducing instances of
piracy). Police training, sufficient manpower, proper machinery, and office infrastructure
would permit effective copyright investigation. Id.; Copyright Laws in India, supra note
38 (advising establishment of seminars and workshops to create greater awareness among
enforcement personnel).
n100. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (setting forth debate about police training
programs); see also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 133 (discussing procedural
burdens and hurdles to combat piracy). Although a few Indian states established
specialized police units to combat piracy, these units were unsuccessful in targeting
larger pirate distribution and production rings because they lacked the necessary
resources, such as manpower, training, and funds. 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at
133. See also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (noting sufficient manpower in
police departments mechanism to reduce piracy).
n101. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII, (stating solution to insufficient funding for
police copyright law training); see also Bollywood Protest, supra note 53 (describing
cable piracy results on Indian film industry).
n102. See Anti-piracy Laws Enforcement Key for Indian Entertainment Industry, supra
note 52 (suggesting India film industry should help to counter piracy); see also Nair,
supra note 6, at ch. VIII (examining ways to procure funding for police department
programs). The associations with the most copyright infringement problems should take
the lead in raising revenue to fund the police departments because the losses from piracy
most drastically affect their members. Id.
n103. See Bollywood Protest, supra note 53 (mentioning government's role in piracy
problem).
n104. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (stating problem with and solution to police
training programs in copyright area). India has a shortage of effective copyright law
trainers. Id. Police officers must receive training in the Copyright Act of 1994, the
different types of violations that can take place under the law, and how to differentiate
pirated products. Id. Copyright associations, prominent lawyers, and prominent film
industry associations must develop programs that help train police officers specializing in
copyright infringement cases. Id. Educating copyright crime cell heads regarding
copyright infringement requires implementation of copyright workshops. Id. Circulation
of training modules during the workshop will aid department heads when they return to
their respective police department cells to educate those police officers working with
copyright-related crime. Id.
n105. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (considering Section 64 language and
importance of educating police in interpretation); see supra notes 81-83 and
accompanying text (discussing Section 64 "if he is satisfied" language).
n106. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII, X (focusing on solution to problems with state
copyright enforcement). Nair's survey observed that seven states implemented separate
cells dealing exclusively with copyright related crimes. Id. at ch. VIII. Some of the bigger
states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, however, do not have such cells and their
police departments' regular crime branches handle the copyright cases. Id. at ch. VIII.
n107. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. X (recommending government's role in improving
India's copyright enforcement on police level); see also Kumar, supra note 86
(recognizing police limitations on national level contributing to lack of national antipiracy enforcement). Effective "all-India" enforcement is unavailable because police are
unwilling to conduct raids outside of their respective jurisdictions. Kumar, supra note 86.
See also 2002 301 Report, supra note 54, at 127, 130 (outlining IIPA recommendations to
lower piracy level). India currently lacks a national body devoted to copyright law
enforcement; instead, the government relies on each state to implement enforcement
measures. Id. This leads to an inefficient system because each state has different
capabilities to deal with the piracy problem. Id.
n108. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (discussing police role in lessening delays); see
also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (recommending appointment of expert
prosecutors to work closely with state cells); Copyright Laws in India, supra note 38
(noting Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council advising Indian Government on
improving enforcement).
n109. See India Report 2000, supra note 62 (listing deficiencies with Copyright Act of
1994 making it incompatible with TRIPS Agreement). Problems with the current
Copyright Act of 1994 that make it incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement include: (1)
the maximum fines are too low to deter major infringements; (2) a reporting requirement
that the prosecution must prove actual knowledge in criminal cases that violates TRIPS
Articles 41 and 61; (3) court procedures that are overly burdensome; (4) minimal
criminal convictions for piracy; and (5) a twenty-five-year copyright protection term for
performers. Id. See also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 137 (listing deficiencies in
enforcement system causing India's incompatibility with TRIPS); 2001 301 Report, supra
note 59, at 392 (stating Copyright Act of 1994 met TRIPS-compatibility from substantive
rights standpoint). India has the toughest criminal provisions in the world; however, the
Indian Government failed to implement them. Id.
n110. See India Report 2000, supra note 62 (mentioning standard of proof language in
Copyright Act of 1994); see also Lall, supra note 7 (stating evidentiary and procedural
hurdle to effective enforcement). The law requires the prosecution in a copyright
infringement case to prove both copyright ownership and the defendant's "actual
knowledge" of the infringement. Lall, supra note 7.
n111. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (suggesting remedies to current Indian
copyright enforcement system making law fully TRIPS-compatible); see also Lall, supra
note 7 (suggesting change to copyright law). The government should amend the law to
include statutory presumptions of copyright subsistence and ownership. Lall, supra note
7. In addition, the prosecution should be required to prove that the defendant "knew or
reasonably should have known" of the copyright infringement, which is the normal
standard of proof from such cases. Id. See also TRIPS Agreement, supra note 62
(codifying Article 61 standard of proof language). Article 61 states, "members [of the
TRIPS Agreement] shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at
least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial
sale." Id. In addition, Article 61 states that, "members may provide for criminal
procedures and penalties to be applied to in other cases of infringement of intellectual
property rights, in particular where they are committed willfully and on a commercial
scale." Id.
n112. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (explaining problems facing police officers
with actual knowledge as standard in making copyright infringement arrest); see also
2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (setting forth IIPA recommendations to assist
copyright holders in enforcing their rights).
n113. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (outlining several key changes needed
in India's court system to lessen high piracy level); see also 1999 301 Report, supra note
52 (explaining major problem in Indian copyright enforcement due to lack of properly
functioning court system). The film industry lost US$ 295.1 million in 1998 due to high
piracy levels in India. 1999 301 Report, supra note 52. The Indian Government can
remedy the problem by seriously reforming the judicial system. Id. The government must
remove procedural hurdles that currently overburden and prolong court proceedings. Id.
See also Lall, supra note 7 (noting overburdened court system additional problem in
enforcement system). In addition to lack of proper police enforcement, overburdened
courts impede effective copyright enforcement. Id. It can take almost seven years to
complete a criminal case, which makes the strong mandatory sentencing provisions of the
law illusory. Id.
n114. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127, 130 (summarizing problems of Indian
court system and solutions to reform judicial system).
n115. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (setting forth suggestions to deal with
hurdles copyright holders face in Indian court system); see also Anti-piracy Laws
Enforcement Key for Indian Entertainment Industry, supra note 52 (suggesting special
anti-piracy unit in Indian courts to handle copyright infringement cases).
n116. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (stressing importance of changes in Indian
judicial system to achieve lower cable piracy levels). After the Delhi Magistrate
sentenced a cable operator to six months imprisonment at hard labor and ordered a fine of
5,000 Rupees (US$ 140), the Delhi cable system substantially reduced its transmissions
of pirated material. Id. See also 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 133 (stating law's
deterrent effect unachieved due to long and expensive court processes that hinder swift
punishment); see also 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (discussing Copyright Act of
1994's strengths and weaknesses). The IIPA observed that India's Copyright Act of 1994
embodies the toughest criminal provisions in the world; however, an increase in the level
of fines is necessary to achieve a deterrent effect. Intellectual Property Rights in India,
supra note 52.
n117. See supra notes 110-12 and accompanying text (setting forth recommendations for
court reform).
n118. See TRIPS Agreement, supra note 62 (stating the agreement's general obligations).
Article 41(5) states:
It is understood that this Part does not create any obligation to put in place a judicial
system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the
enforcement of law in general, nor does it affect the capacity of Members to enforce their
law in general. Nothing in this Part creates any obligation with respect to the distribution
of resources as between enforcement of intellectual property rights and enforcement of
law in general.
Id.
See Kumar, supra note 86 (noting officials' view regarding need for distinct courts to deal
with copyright cases); see also 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (stating IIPA's
recommendation to establish special copyright courts to litigate cases).
n119. See 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (observing few convictions compared to
numerous arrests since passage of Copyright Act of 1994); see also 2002 301 Report,
supra note 45, at 127 (summarizing Indian court system's failure to close cases with
convictions).
n120. See supra note 107 and accompanying text (detailing problems with court system
that affect lack of deterrence); see supra note 104 and accompanying text (outlining
TRIPS Agreement articles violated by India due to lack of proper judicial enforcement).
n121. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (recommending enforcement on
national level); see also 1999 301 Report, supra note 52 (stating IIPA's suggestion
establishing central body at federal level to coordinate enforcement); see also Nair, supra
note 6, at ch. X (recommending Indian Government bring all intellectual property bodies
under one organization).
n122. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (observing current state of national
coordination of Indian copyright enforcement).
n123. See Kumar, supra note 86 (maintaining copyright problems due to copyright
enforcement restricted to state level). Police officers cannot make arrests across
jurisdictions because each state might have different state requirements for a copyright
infringement arrest. Id. See 2002 301 Report, supra note 45, at 127 (setting forth reason
for inefficient enforcement system). Each state deals with copyright enforcement
differently; therefore, capabilities and results vary widely throughout India. Id.
n124. See supra notes 80-84 and accompanying text (discussing problems with public's
awareness of copyright problems).
n125. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (detailing recommendations to educate Indian
public about copyright laws); see also Lall, supra note 7 (encouraging methods to gain
greater public awareness about copyright issues).
n126. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (discussing various mediums to reach Indian
public); see also IPR Law in India, supra note 47 (stating extensive media campaign
against piracy possible means to achieve deterrence).
n127. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (pointing to exact focus of education programs).
n128. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (highlighting campaign focal point).
n129. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (listing results of poll directed to law
enforcement throughout India regarding copyright infringement); see also Kumar, supra
note 86 (suggesting enforcement more successful if copyright infringement widely
publicized).
n130. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. X (recommending instituting copyright education
program geared toward general public and police).
n131. See Nair, supra note 6, at chs. VIII, X (noting ways to tackle extensive piracy
problem on college level).
n132. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (detailing programs aimed at college and school
level students).
n133. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (discussing reasons for educating copyright
holders and distributors of copyrighted products include protecting copyrights from
infringement).
n134. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (indicating copyright owner's knowledge often
insufficient).
n135. See Nair, supra note 6, at ch. VIII (suggesting informed copyright holders more
likely to report infringement violations).
n136. See supra notes 16-36 and accompanying text (outlining Indian copyright law
history from British India to independent India).
n137. See supra notes 37-43 and accompanying text (discussing U.S. influence on
modification of Indian copyright laws).
n138. See supra notes 59-61 and accompanying text (indicating problems in making
Copyright Act of 1994 and TRIPS compatible).
n139. See supra notes 85-87 and accompanying text (explaining reasons why India is
placed on U.S. watch list).
n140. See supra notes 50-53 and accompanying text (arguing despite improvements in
India's copyright laws, film industry deteriorating because of piracy).
Document 6 of 6.
Terms and Conditions | Privacy
Copyright © 2006 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.