For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

Justice Patterson said – “... what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting” . The current work focuses on the problem of the violation of copyright in the sphere of cyberspace, since copyright is directly related to the sphere of cyberspace. The cyber world contains various problems in the field of copyright protection. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that copyright violators in internet are hidden and can readily conceal their credentials. Songs, films, photos, publications, articles, and other works are copyrighted and can be simply duplicated and recreated by these infringers and sold online in the internet domain. These questions must be answered with care and research, taking into account the current state of open data sharing on the internet. The current work will discuss the meaning of cyberspace, basic intellectual property challenges, an answer to the question of why copyright is inadequate to deal with cyberspace, copyright infringement, the Indian position on cyberspace jurisdiction, possible ways to prevent copyright infringement in cyberspace, and the prospects of copyright in cyber world.

The objective of this paper is to study the Copyright in Cyber Crime.

One of the biggest concerns of the cyberspace is the protection of the intellectual property which is the creation of mind. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 , Sections 13 and 63, safeguard literature, photographs, sound recordings, and other creative works from being duplicated without the author's or copyright holder's consent. However, it is still unclear how the law protects or will protect the materials that appear in cyberspace.

Intellectual property rights issues on internet

The increased use of internet created the threat to the protection of intellectual property at present. In the realm of this open cyberspace, it is difficult to tackle the issue faced in protection of intellectual property as almost everything is available on internet which can be easily copied by anyone and everyone. Till yet no efficient machinery developed to overcome with the infringement of intellectual property on internet.The internet has produced two fundamental difficulties for intellectual property rights administrators: one is what to administer, and the other is how to administer. The problem here is to strike a balance between the interests of many parties on the internet, such as content suppliers, service providers, and so on. This must be accomplished without endangering the free flow of information on the internet or the intellectual property rights holders' interests.

The copyright legislation appears to be a useful tool for dealing with the current issue of intellectual property rights on the internet. The Indian Copyright Act, first passed in 1957, was later revised in 1994. With this revision, the law becomes more forward-looking, as it appears to be capable of dealing with the problems that digital technology, notably the internet, has caused. The Act embraced the digital era by broadening the classifications of works such as cinematograph film[1] and sound recording[2]. However, when it comes to intellectual property rights issues in cyberspace, it will ultimately depend on how courts react and how case law develops.

Why copyright is so exposed on cyberspace

The relationship between the net and intellectual property laws is quite complex. The internet is a global infrastructure for the free flow of information and content replication; many of the resources are copyrighted.Hence it provides the platform for infringement of copyright and present many unforeseen challenges to copyright.

Earlier the access of technology created the barrier to copying the materials by general public, but now with the advancement of technology, the average person become the able to photocopying the articles, recording the television shows, reproducing the albums etc.However, the copyright is still alive and well because the courts have almost shown no sympathy for copyright violators and have construed the copyright law to defend the interests of the copyright owners.

Because of the ease of communication, one of the most dangerous aspects of the digital era is the numerous uses of content. Now if someone has a copy of any article can easily share with any other just by emailing him. Now both have the copy of that. Similarly, someone had a book, he could let it borrow to his friend, and it is not prohibited by copyright law. After getting the book, the "first sale doctrine" allows him to do whatever he wants with it, including reselling it, which is not barred by copyright law. But is someone after the obtaining the book sharing it with someone else by way of email or other means in which another copy of it created, and now both having copy of it, it is infringement of the copyright.

Basic hurdles in way to protect copyright on cyberspace

1 Determining the public and private use

All copyright legislation in the world classified the reproduction for the use of public and private, India also recognized this distinction. This determination is a big challenge on the internet.While copyrighted information can only be reproduced for mass use with the permission of the copyright owner, copyright legislation allows for private uses such as research, evaluation, and criticism. The thin determining line between public and private use on internet is eroded as on internet users share the copyrighted work with many people hiding in their privacy and residing at home.

The question debated is whether the work made available on the internet by the author is ‘publication’ or not. The definition of publication in Indian law is "making the work available to the public by issuing copies or conveying the work to the public." This concept of publishing is not limited to print publications; it can also include online publications.

2 The challenges of distribution and reproduction rights over internet

Like all other copyrights law, Indian law also provides that the distribution rights get exhausted on the first sale. The purchaser can freely resell it or freely distribute it to any other. But on the internet the distribution and reproduction is so complicated to each other that one cannot be separated from another as every distribution automatically call for reproduction. It is the very nature of the transmission over the internet. Even when the user only browses the material on the internet, the temporary copying is being made on the user’s computer. The issue in unsettled till yet as if this temporary reproduction is also restricted. According to Indian law, replication involves storing copyrighted content in any form or medium, including electronic means. The topic of temporary and permanent reproduction has yet to be clarified by case law.

3 The problem in Enforcing the Liability

The challenges also came in the way of enforcing of liability after the copyright infringement over the internet. Let us take the example of the transmission of the legal copy of the copyrighted work. As earlier discussed, that the reproduction also occurs in this way. The answer to the question is determined by the courts' interpretation of the numerous legal rights available. If the courts agree that replication in transit is also a copyright violation, the question of who will be held accountable for this reproduction arises.The party who sends it or the party who receives it on the other side or the Internet Service Provider (hereinafter referred as ISP).

Another question is the fixing of the liability on the transmission of the clearly infringed copy of the work. If the ISP should be made liable for this action of its subscriber? If the infraction was committed without knowledge and due care was adequately done, the Information Technology Act of 2000[3] provides an exception for intermediary liability. Another issue is that, even though the ISP is not liable under Indian law, it may be liable under the laws of other countries because the internet is a global phenomenon that can be accessed from anywhere on the planet. Contributory infringement necessitates accountability as well. "One who, with knowledge of the infringing behaviour, promotes, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another"[4] is a contributory infringer. To hold an ISP accountable, it must meet either the contributory copyright infringement or the vicarious copyright infringement[5] requirements.

Legal development with Judicial Pronouncements

The duty to settle the law for above discussed problems currently lies on the courts. There are various pronouncements by courts in this way.

1 Viacom International Incorporation V. YouTube Incorporation.[6]

This case is also famously known as the VIACOM LITIGATION. A major entertainment content company named VIACOM on March, 2010 filled the litigation against the famous search engine GOOGLE and its subsidiary YOUTUBE. The facts of the case were that in 2007, episodes of SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS, which was broadcast on the VIACOM subsidiary known as Nikledeon, were uploaded on YOUTUBE. Although there was formerly a content exchange arrangement between VIACOM and YOUTUBE, it was terminated in 2007. The VIACOM claims that GOOGLE and YOUTUBE infringed on its copyright by displaying its copyrighted materials. GOOGLE and YOUTUBE were deemed accountable by the court.

2 Kelly V. Arriba Soft corps.[7]

In this case, a web search engine displayed copyrighted photos of Leslie Kelly. In which case, not only did the thumbnails of the pictures appear in the search results, but also the full-sized images. This was determined to be the illegal use and reproduction of the plaintiff's copyrighted photograph, which resulted in copyright infringement. It was further observed that if there was only the creating was thumbnails, it may be justified as amounted to fair use but making available for download the full size pictures is definitely the infringement of the copyright.

3 Microsoft Corporation V. Yogesh Popat and ANR.[8]

This case was that the M/S Compton Computers Private Limited was engaged in business selling the computers after the assembling the parts. It was found that the company was installing the pirated version of software ofwhich copyright is held by Microsoft. The Delhi High Court found the allegations were true and awarded the compensation of the Rs. 23.62 Lacs.

4 Syed Asifuddin and ors V. The State of Andhra Pradesh and ANR.[9]

In this case, claims were made and workers of Tata Indicom were detained for hacking the computer source code owned and exclusively utilised by Reliance Telecommunication under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court determined that tampering with computer source code constituted a crime under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act of 2000. In light of Sections 2(o), 13 and 14, the court concluded that the computer programme is a literary work that is covered by copyright law. In addition, violation of a computer programme is a criminal offence under section 63. It was also noted that such tampering with computer source code is not regarded as equitable.

5 Fermant Education v. M/S Sorting Hat Technologies Ltd.[10]

The defendant was accused of infringing on the copyright in the course materials (2IIM CAT questions) by posting them on the website. The defence of fair use of the materials for the course of teaching cannot be effectively pled by a teacher or a student because it was put on the website for consideration. It was held that once the consideration is paid to defendant for uploading the materials on the website, it becomes the business venture and the responsibility lies on the defendant that it does not infringed the copyright of any other person.

6 B.N.Firos V State of Kerala.[11]

In this case the appellant was a developer of a computer software program which was created as a part of a government project. The government's decision to label the software application a "Protected System" under Section 70 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was challenged by the petitioner. After reading the relevant clauses of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 together, the Supreme Court concluded that only those computer systems that qualify as "Government Works" under the Copyright Act, 1957 can be proclaimed "Protected Systems."The government was found to be the initial owner of the software because it was first published by a government organisation and was classified as "Government Work" under section 2(k) of the Copyright Act of 1957. Hence the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

7UTV Software communication ltd. V. 1227X.TO and ors.[12]

This is the first time a 'Dynamic Injunction' has been issued in India. The petitioner is a corporation that specialises in generating, producing, and distributing cinematic entertainment around the world.The defendants were accused of operating a company in which they provide access to the plaintiff's copyrighted materials on their website, infringing on the plaintiff's rights under the Copyright Act of 1957. The court awarded a 'Dynamic Injunction,' which means that the injunction will apply not just to the websites listed in the court order, but also to any'mirror/alphanumeric/redirect' websites built after the court's injunction order was issued.

This mechanism for issuing a 'Dynamic Injunction' would be extremely useful in the fight against piracy by 'Rogue Websites,' and it would also relieve copyright owners of the burden of having to go through the difficult process of litigation over and again.

Ways to prevent copyright infringement over internet

1 Electronic copyright management system (ECMS)

Copyright owners can use this technology to track, regulate, or prevent their works from being copied.The one easy and widely used ECMS is the digital watermarking system. In this technique, the encrypted information is incorporated in the digitized work, when any alteration is made on it which cannot be visible by the naked eye; this system enables the owner to identify the unauthorized copies of its work. This can be recognised by sending the robotic system to search through the contents of the websites.If any infringement copy is found, the owner can send information about it to ISP to remove it.

2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 (DMCA)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 in the United States recognises the EMCS as an effective tool for preventing copyright infringements in cyberspace.

3 Stronger Legislations

In India, there is currently no rigorous legislation in place that can be used to impose heavy penalties or serve as a deterrence to future offenders. Existing laws are out of date in light of recent advancements in internet.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the advancement of cyberspace technology poses a significant threat to the preservation of intellectual property rights. Infringement of intellectual property is fairly widespread these days in India. The current legal frameworks are insufficient to address the issues of intellectual property infringement in cyberspace. As a result, there is an urgent need for specific legislation to address the issues of intellectual property infringement in cyberspace. The interpretation of the current statutes by the courts now days provide reliefs in the cases of the copyright infringement over the cyberspace to the owners but if there is a specific legislation dealing with the Intellectual Property infringement over cyberspace, then only it would prove to be sufficient to tackle the above-mentioned problems. The procedure of ‘Dynamic Injunction’ adopted by the High Court of Delhi is the welcome move to tackle the problem of the copyright infringement over the cyberspace.

1. University of London Press Ltd. V University Tutorial Press Ltd. [1916] 2 Ch 601. 2. Act No. 14 of 1957. 3. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Sec. 2(f). 4. Id. s. 2(xx). 5. S. 79. 6. Gershwin Publ’g Corp v Columbia Artists Management Inc, 443 F 2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir 1971. 7. Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studios Inc (US 1984) 104 S Ct 774, 464 U S 417. 8. 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 9. 336 F.3d 811 10. 2005 (30) PTC 245 Del. 11. 2006 (1) ALD Cri 96. 12. In the case of “Sorting Hat Technologies Pvt. V. Fermat Education and Others; Case no. 330 of 2018 13. Available onhttps://indiankanoon.org/doc/111687308/, (last visited on February9, 2022). 14. In the case of “B. N. Firos V.State of Kerala; Appeal no. 79 of 2008; Available onhttps://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331367/, (last visited on February 9, 2022). 15. In the Case of “UTV Software Communication Ltd. V. 1337X.To and others; Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47479491/), (last visited on February 9, 2022).