CABLE TELEVISION AND COPYRIGHT OWNERS

India is a strangely contradictory nation. A significant proportion of it is populated by people, who live in deprivation and obvious poverty without sufficient refuge, sanitation or drinking water, other than on streets and pavements. But it should not be shocking to see the inhabitants of some of the shanties that line the roads, before a TV. The power of this idiot box is so strong that its demand seems to outweigh the need for a decent home.  This should be no surprise maybe in a country that was unable to attain the right of a reasonable standard of living for an overwhelming majority of its people but which was practically upgraded to basic right while watching TV crickets.

This is the product of the broadcasting revolution of 1990. This phenomenon of burgeoning television audience Satellite invasion has spurred technical progress to circumvent the law. While 300 channels are bordering the airwaves, the control mechanisms are not coordinated and effective. In contrast to the copyright for literary, dramatic, musical and creative goods, the principle of the "broadcast reproduction right" is relatively recent.

The lack of protection in cable TV was abolished in India with the Indian Copyright Act 1957. At a later point, international protection was also granted to broadcasting. Since broadcasting entities are either government agencies or public companies or business organisations, the government needs a license to operate. The signals are sent via cable to each TV set in cable television. The nature of cable television is not that a third party transmits signals in multiple locations, such as rooms in hotels or houses in town from a simple aircraft to more than one television set. The original goal was to provide better reception for the subscribers in shadow areas.

The 1983 Copyright Act replaced the 'broadcast' term. Broadcasting meant public communication which, according to 2(f), means making any work available directly to the public that this meaning involves cable broadcasting to be seen or heard or to be otherwise enjoyed. However, in the 1955 Act of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation), cable service is described as cable transmission. On 1 April 1976 television was split from AIR and thus a new age of television history in India started to be called DD. PSB is committed to Doordarshan, India's national TV service. Star TV broke the Doordarshan monopoly on cable TV.

The Cable Operators Federation of India is a national organisation, and a non-profit organisation headed in New Delhi is a single entity representing the International and National Indian cable operator. Copyright for Cable TV and jukebox was granted in the US by the copyright Act, 1976. The article would therefore like to investigate whether the cable operators have been given justice by safeguarding their rights in the context of copyright.

Cable Television

The signals are sent via cable to each TV set in cable television. Cable TV does not relay signals from the simple aircraft to more than one television set in various locations, including rooms in the hotels and the houses in one area, to the original broadcast entity, but to a third party. The original goal was to better welcome subscribers to the service than their aircraft could provide, especially, in areas of poor reception such as valleys in which the mountains obstructed the signal or towns that obstructed high-rise blocks, or where there were no environmental or other environmental permission to use individual aircraft. A known audience, usual subscribers of the service, will receive a transmission from a third party.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MOVIE TITLES ARE PROTECTED UNDER COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK LAW? WATCH THIS - 

OWNERSHIP AND DURATION

In respect of their broadcasts, the Copyright Act 1957 grants each broadcasting entity a special privilege, which is called the "broadcast reproduction right." There is no copyright in cable and radio programs. That is why broadcasting entities have been given special privileges.

From the beginning of the calendar year next following the year that the programme is transmitted, the right to repeat the broadcast lasts until 25 years. The 1957 copyright law is silent on the retransmission term. No new right to reproduce broadcasting shall be given on repeated broadcast if no special provisions are made.

Rights of Owners in Broadcasting and in Cable Programmes

The copyright owner of a television broadcast: is entitled to re-cast broadcasting. A broadcast is a restricted act without the correct owner's license. The description includes re-broadcast

Of broadcast. of broadcasting. Broadcast means access to the public, whether in one or more of the ways, sounds or pictures, through wireless broadcasting or by Cable. The limitation extends therefore also to the inclusion in the cable programme of work already transmitted.

Retransmission through cable; where the cable is retransmitted by a broadcast immediately within the receiving region, the behaviour does not violate the broadcast given that the broadcast is not encrypted or by satellite; nor does it violate any work found in broadcasting. In its current version, this exception is restricted only to situations in which cabling of the broadcast prevents a weak reception. However, the national laws as they are here can make this duty conditional.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON CABLE TELEVISION

In Cine Vog v Coditel ( No, 1), a national German channel transmitted the French film, Le Boucher was received by a Belgian company and cabled for transmission to Brussels and West Belgium subscribers. In line with traditional distribution arrangements intended to first take advantage of the film industry, the film was allowed to broadcast in Germany but not yet in Belgium. Cabling in breach of Belgian copyright law was unlicensed, but the company claimed that the initial broadcasting of the material in Germany depleted the entire right to the material across the EU. The Rome Treaty's policies on free distribution of services in the EU called for the re-cabling of the material to be handled further.

In Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd V. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, The Supreme Court held that the right of a citizen to exhibit Doordarshan films is a fundamental right of freedom of speech under Article l9(1)(a), subject to terms and conditions laid down by Doordarshan. This right can be limited only in the conditions laid down in Article 19(1) (2). The Court held that this right corresponds to a citizen's right to publish his views in all other media, including articles, journals, ads, hosting, etc. In that case, Honi Anhoni, on the grounds that the display promoted superstition and blind faith, was called in question by the complainant.

In LIC v. Manubhai Shah, the right to broadcast on television was recognized. The topic of the challenge, in this case, was Doordarshan's refusal to screen a documentary film titled "Beyond Genocide," on the Bhopal Gas Disaster. The film was outdated; it lost relevance; it was lacking in moderation and restraint; it was biased and balanced; political parties posed many concerns surrounding the tragedy; victim compensation claims were 'sub-judgment'; a movie was likely to create uncertainty in an environment already accused, and the film's critiques were not based on a variety of reasons.

The fact that airwaves or frequencies are restricted in the realm of public property owned by the State makes another difference between TV and the print media. In Secy., Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, the Court held that because of the resource's limited character, the creation of a central agency creating its own broadcasting network or controlling licensing of other agencies like private agencies could allow optimum use of the resource. 

The Panel Case, It concerned the suspected violation of copyright on 20 television programmes of Channel Nine. The case resulted from the actions of 'The Panel' the influential Network Ten. The exhibition is mainly an informal (chat show) in which 'The Panel' members debate and often parody or satire topics from the present to sport and movies and re-emerge sections of the nine programmes. Subsequently, nine of them sued ten for re-emerge under Section 87(c) of the Copyright Act.” The case argues that the use of that item does not require a major part of the subject of Part IV unless the owner of the copyright sometimes uses the observable damage. Because the infringing use of a significant part of a work or other topic must include, the effect of the decision is to create a required copyright infringement condition for some sort of quantifiable harm.

WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT COPYRIGHT LAW? WATCH THIS VIDEO- 

BY - RAKSHA SINGHAL