Allowing an appeal in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd v Music Broadcast Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that the Copyright Board cannot issue interim orders while it considers the merits of complaints made – under section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – against owners of copyright who withhold works from the public. If a copyright owner’s refusal to grant a licence is found to be unreasonable the Copyright Board can allow compulsory licences.
A three-judge bench of the apex court held that quasi-judicial tribunals such as the Copyright Board “exist in order to preserve the status quo, but not to alter the same” and if parliament “had intended that the Copyright Board should have powers to grant mandatory injunction at the interim stage, it would have vested the board with such authority”.
Music Broadcast (MBPL) had broadcast sound recordings owned by Super Cassettes using a mutually agreed voluntary licence. However, after the Copyright Board set the terms and conditions for a compulsory licence of recordings owned by Phonographic Performance Limited in August 2010, MBPL asked Super Cassettes to grant it a licence at the same rate, as it was more favourable. Super Cassettes responded by offering a licence under the terms of the voluntary licence, which had since expired.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章，欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
