TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 1047
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Addl. City Civil Court at Bangalore on the following pleadings: "The plaintiff during the course of their business, were willing of sound recording into audio cassettes of three titles viz., 'kallusakkare kolliro', 'maduve maduve maduve' and 'chinnada hadugalu'. The copyrights of the songs containing in these three sound recording cassettes vest with the defendant No. 1. Accordingly the plaintiff, as contemplated under the Copyright Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] issued a notice as per sub-clause (ii) of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Act on 16-5-1998 notifying their intention to record 1000 nos. each of audio cassettes of the above three titles. The said letter was enclosed with three inlay c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of copyright in the work royalties of Rs. 1,500 each in respect of all such sound recordings to be made by him and Rs. 1,500 is the rate fixed by the Copyright Board in this behalf. The High Court accepted the arguments of the respondent No. 1 that in the event of licence or consent is not given even after compliance of section 52(1)(j) within 15 days, the licence is deemed to have been granted and the person producing the cassette after the expiry of 15 days is not said to have infringed copyright. The High Court proceeded to further state that section 52(1)(j) does not require prior consent from the owner of the copyright and that the owner is entitled to royalty fixed and a notice of the intention of the respondent No. 1 to make the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any legal rights of the person making such threats and he can also obtain damages and that a suit of the present nature could not have been filed. This aspect also did not appeal either to the Trial Court or the High Court. 5. Shri R.F. Nariman, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that this case gives rise to decision on an important aspect of entertaining a suit under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act in addition to copyright. He took us through the entire Copyright Act explaining the scope thereof. He submitted that the interpretation given by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court ignores the intendment of the provisions of the Act; he drew our attention to the Statement of Objects & Reasons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that prior to the 1994 amendment of section 52(1)(j), the expression 'previously' was used in sub-clause (i) and which has been subsequently omitted. The entirety of the case argued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is on the pre-amended position and, therefore, the High Court and the Trial Court were wrong in their conclusion. The contention put forth on behalf of the respondents that the present case is a case of 'version recording' and they are referred to as 'debased versions'; a different singer, a different orchestra and a different studio only perpetuates and compounds the act of piracy and the case put forth on behalf of respondents does not find support in any literature. He referred to an enormous amount of legal literature on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention is that the first condition of section 52(1)(j) must be 'with the consent of the owner' whereas the owner's consent is not a pre- requisite for the sound recording. Moreover, a combined reading of clause (iii) of the proviso to section 52(1)(j) with section 52(1)(j)(i ) makes it further clear that the consent requirement is only for the first recording. He submitted that a statutory license of the nature contemplated under section 52(1)(j) is considered to be in public interest and is recognised in most of the countries in the world and is resorted to as the appropriate form of licensing. Inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 has satisfied the requirements of section 52(1)(j) and rule 21, it has not violated the literary and musical works....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the respondent No. 1 had satisfied the requirements of section 52(1)(j) which is a defense to infringement of copyright. 9. Whatever may have been the case pleaded and argued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 before the Trial Court or before the High Court, the case now pleaded and argued centres round certain submissions such as that sound recordings in respect of the musical cassettes in question have been previously made with the consent of the copyright owner; that in case of musical record, it is only such record which embodies sound recording which amounts to infringement, but if another signal is created such as in the case of version recording it is not an infringement. 10. We have set out the facts alleged in the plaint ....