RESEARCH PROJECT ON

CABLE TELEVISION AND COPYRIGHT OWNERS

SUBMITTED TO

In Fulfillment of the Requirements for Internal Component in

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

By

C.PRAVEEN

(Reg. No. BA0140041)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE & SUPERVISION OF

Prof. Mr. M. MAHENDRA PRABU

1
 DECLARATION

I Praveen. C , hereby declare that this project work entitled “Cable Television and
Copyright Owners” has been originally carried out by me under the guidance and
supervision of Prof. Mr. M. MAHENDRA PRABU , Associate Professor of Law,
Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli - 620 009. This work has not
been submitted either in whole or in part of any Degree / Diploma in this
Institution or any other Institution/University.

Place : Tiruchirappalli
Date : 23-10-2017

2
 CABLE TELEVISION AND COPYRIGHT OWNERS

A. INTRODUCTION

TV is the very important media which performing important place in the India. The country
has sixty million homes are with TV, of where which twenty eight million are where cabled,
where bringing both city and village there are around a hundred channels. Comparing with
US cities there are more TV channels are available in Indian cities, Clinton noted to the city
in 1999.
The India is the country of curious contradictions. 1 A huge amount of the population has
nowhere to live other than the street and pathways in squalor and apparent penury without
having a proper shelter, hygiene or drinking water.2 But looking closely in to some of the
shanties line in our roads it not to be surprise to see the inhabitant rapt before a TV set.3 So
potent is the power of the idiot box that its demand seems to surpass the need for a decent
dwelling. Perhaps this should be no surprise in a country which has been unable to achieve
for a vast majority of its citizens the right to a decent standard of living, but, nevertheless
where watching televised cricket has been elevated, virtually, to the status of a fundamental
right. The phenomenon of rapidly increasing television audiences which result in
broadcasting revolution of the 1990. By the satellite invasion and technological developments
which have outpaced the law. Through the satellite invention where 3 hundred TV channels
cram through the airwaves, for that there is no organised and effective regulatory
mechanism.4
The concept of “broadcast reproduction right” is new in compare to the copyright protection
for dramatic, musical, literary and artistic works. In India has the Indian copyright Act 1957
in this act has not given any protection to the cable television. And also in international level
also there is no production but later stages they given to broadcast. Where this broadcasting
organisations are either in the departments of under the state or public corporation or in
commercial organisation the government give the license in order to operate.
The cable television is nothing but a signal is transmitted through the cable and this
transmission is transmitting to the individual television sets. It is not the original broadcasting
organisation it is transmits signals is transmitted by the third party from the simple aerial to
more the one TV set located in different place such as house or hotels or room. The original
purpose was to give the subscribers better reception in shadow zones. The Copyright
(Amendment) Act 1983 substituted the definition of ‘broadcast’. Broadcast meant
communication to public which according to 2(ff) means making any work available for seen
or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly that is this definition includes cable
television too. Where the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955 defines ‘cable

1
Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 s.57, Sch.5 paras 6,7,
2
Murphy v Media Protection Services (2008) 1 W.L.R. 1869
3
Football Association P L v Q C Leisure (2008)
4
CDPA 1988 s.64 A

3
service’ to mean the transmission by cable programs. Television is separated from AIR on 1
April 1976 and named as DD. Doordarshan the international television channel service in
India is devoted by PSB. The Star TV has dominated the doordarshan in cable television.
Cable Operators Federation of India (COFI) is a national level which is head in New Delhi is
to represent the Indian Cable Operator in International and national level. In USA the
Copyright Act, 1976 gave copyright licensing to the cable television transmission and
jukebox.5 In this project the researcher would like to explore whether justice has been granted
to the Cable Operators in Copyright by protecting their right or not.6

B. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CABLE TELEVISION IN INDIA

In 1959, television was first introduced in Delhi and it was extended to Bombay and other
states in 1972.7 In 1973 first reached to Srinagar and Amritsar which are the Border States.
And soon television receivers were setup in villages in Kashmir. This television was used for
the broadcast the government viewpoint on social and political issues.

While during the Emergency in 1975 there was gross manhandle of TV by the government.
This prompted a political interest for the self-governance of TV.8 The Akash Bharati Bill
proclaimed that the trust was to be the 'trustee of the national interest for radio and TV and
should maintain the aggregate right of the Indian individuals to the right to speech,
expression, and communication through communicate broadcast media.9 'The bill was passed
in 1990 yet the administration fell before the Act could be advised. The new overseer
government retired the subject of self-governance. It was just in 1997 that a non Congress
government decided to notify in the Act. 10

For a very long while in post-independence India, broadcasting remained the sole save of the
State. 11 The firmly controlled broadcasting system was consonant with the nation's shut
economic system. Radio and TV remained government restraining infrastructures, apparently
with the end goal of 'country constructing' and to serve ‘larger public interest' yet in all
actuality were utilized as a mouthpiece of the political party in control. 12

5
Morgan, International Protection of Performer’s Rights (2002)
6
Morgan, International Protection of Performer’s Rights (2002)
7
The Communication Convergence Bill, 2001
8
Raj Kapoor v. Laxman, (1980) 2 SC (Cri)
9
Ramesh v UOI, (1988) 1 SCC 668
10
(1995) 2 SCC 161
11
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 4
12
The Government of India Act, 1935, Section 129

4
In the early 1990s, Doordarshan got itself overtaken by technological improvements. For all
its tight control, Doordarshan was not able contain the assault from the skies. The satellite
intrusion started amid the Gulf war when hotels indicated CNN coverage of the war and
private jumped up in neighbour hoods offering link associations connected to a rooftop dish
reception antenna. In September, 1992, the Air Time Committee of India13 , was set up to
look at methods for opening up the electronic media to private supporters a This was a move
towards privatization, to enable private makers to create programs for Doordarshan and radio.
The suggestions of the council were not executed. The spurt in private channels was also
nothing short of a revolution.14

NEIGH BORING RIGHTS

The idea of 'neigh boring rights' which is otherwise called 'related rights' risen basically
because of technological developments which occurred since the second half of the
nineteenth century . The acknowledgment to these rights at universal level was, nonetheless,
accorded in 1961 by the Rome Convention.15 The term 'neighbouring rights' for the most part
covers three kinds of rights: the rights of performing specialists in their exhibitions, the rights
of makers of phonograms in their phonograms, and the rights of broadcasting associations in
their radio and TV programs.16

CHAPTER II

1) SATELLITE BROADCASTING

Preceding the appearance of satellite broadcasting, broadcasting was essentially transmission

by remote methods or wireless for electromagnetic signs which, when gotten by appropriate
device, could be changed over into sounds and visual pictures perceptible to, and discernible
by, human ears and eyes.17 The advancement was that rather than the electromagnetic signs
radiated by the first communicate voyaging specifically with no man-made interceding
transmitter to the collector, the transmitted signs were gotten first by a satellite set a geo-
stationery orbit.

13
The PrasarBharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
14
The Cinematograph Act, 1918
15
(1995) 2 SCC 161
16
Annual Report of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 1979-80 (1980)
17
Stephan M Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, Butterworths, 1983, p 198

5
TYPES OF SATELLITE BROADCASTING

There are mostly two sorts of satellite broadcasting: transmission by point-to-point satellite
and direct communicating by satellite.

(I) BROADCASTING BY MEANS OF POINT-TO-POINT SATELLITE

Point-to-point satellites, which are otherwise called fixed service satellites (FSS) are utilized
for intercontinental correspondence between one discharging point and one or more receiving
points. Their signs cover around one third of the world's surface, so that with the guide of
three satellites set over the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, signals from any nation on
the planet can be transported to pretty much any nation on the planet.

(ii) DIRECT BROADCASTING BY SATELLITES

Direct Broadcasting by Satellites (DBS) transmits signal on much lower frequencies. Their
signs are all the more powerful and receivable by individuals from people in general in their
homes after an adjustment of their receiving sets. The signals transmitted by the satellites are
generally intended for reception in only one of a limited group of countries.

2) CABLE TELEVISION
In cable television, the signals are transmitted by cable to the individual television sets. The
essence of cable television is that not the original broadcasting organisation, but a third party
transmits signals from a simple aerial to more than one television set located in different
places, such as rooms in hotels and houses in a town. The original purpose was to give
subscribers to the service better reception than their individual aerials could provide,
particularly in areas of poor reception (so-called shadow zones), such as in valleys where the
mountains obstructed the signal, or in towns where high rise blocks were the obstruction, or
where individual aerials were not allowed on environmental or other grounds. The
transmission by the third party is made to a known public, usually subscribers to the
service18.

AS THE SYSTEM OF CABLE TELEVISION EMERGED:

(i) Simultaneous diffusion of programmes by cable to improve reception;
(ii) Recording of programmes and relaying them at different times by cable;
(iii) Diffusion of modified programmes usually by the insertion of advertising material;

18
Kaminstein Report, Ar 13, Stephan M Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights,
Butterworths, 1983, p 228

6
(iv) Programmes originated by the cable company;
(v) Programmes imported from other regions of the same country or from other countries.

'Cable Television Network' is characterized to mean any framework comprising of an

arrangement of shut transmission ways and related Signal generation, control and distribution
equipment, designed cable service for reception by multiple subscribers 19. Further, 'program'
is characterized by the Act to mean any television broadcast and includes (I) show of movies,
highlights, dramatizations, commercials and serials through video tape recorders or
videocassette players; (ii) any audio or visual or varying media live performance or
presentation.20

CHAPTER III

OWNERSHIP AND DURATION OF BROADCAST AND CABLE TELEVISION

PROGRAM

The Copyright Act 1957 presents on each broadcasting organisation a unique right known
as ‘broadcast reproduction right’ in regard of its broadcast. Copyright does not subsist in
broadcast and in the cable programs.21 It is a direct result of this reason special right has been
presented on broadcasting organisations.

DURATION OF RIGHT IN BROADCASTS AND CABLE PROGRAMS

The broadcast reproduction right subsists until 25 years from the earliest starting point
of the calendar year next after the year in which the broadcast is made. The Copyright Act
1957 is on the term of repeat broadcast. Without a particular provision no new broadcast
reproduction right is given on the repeat broadcast. 22
The Rome Convention 196123 accommodates a 20 year term processed from the end of the
year in which the broadcast will be take place. The Satellite Convention 197424 does not set
up a term of protection, leaving the issue to domestic legislation.25

19
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995, s 2(c).
20
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995, s 2(g).
21
Copyright Act 1957, s 37(1)
22
Copyright Act 1957, s 37(3) (a)
23
Rome Convention 1961, art 3(f)
24
Satellite Convention 1974, art 1 (ii)
25
Copyright Act 1957, s 37(3) (b)

7
Rights of Right Owner in Broadcast and Cable Programs
The owner of copyright in a broadcast: has the exclusive right to Re- broadcast the
Broadcast. 26 It was restricted in the act to re- broadcast the broadcast without the permit
licence of the right owner. Rebroadcast is incorporated into the definition of broadcast.
broadcast means Communication implies correspondence to public, by any methods for
remote or wireless diffusion, regardless of whether in any at least one of the types of signs,
Sounds or visual pictures; or by Wire. In this way, the restriction is likewise appropriate to
the incorporation of an as of now broadcast work in the cable program.

Re-transmission by cable; where a broadcast is promptly re-transmitted by cable the area of

reception for the broadcast, this activity isn't an encroachment of the broadcast, gave that it
isn't encoded or by satellite; nor is it an encroachment of any work incorporated into the
communicate. This special case, in its present variant constrained fundamentally to situations
where poor reception is turned away by cabling of a broadcast. In any case, that obligation
might be adapted by national enactment as it is here. In TRAI’s proposals on communicating
and conveyance of cable television on first October, 2004, the TRAI submitted to the
government of India, its proposals on broadcast and distribution of cable TV.

PROGRAM CODE AND ADVERTISING CODE:

INTRODUCTION OF THE CABLE ACT, 1995

The Cable Act27 brought into constrains a Program Code and an Advertising Code in regard
of projects and promotions transmitted by link administrators. The two codes are aimlessly
drafted and contain wide and approximately worded confinements, most reverberating those
contained in Article 19(2); limitations in light of a legitimate concern for the trustworthiness
of the country, well disposed relations with outside States, ethical quality, goodness,
criticism, scorn of court or induction to an offense and so forth. Be that as it may, a few
confinements are more extensive and not entirely inside the extent of Article 19(2). For
example, run 7(3) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, forbids ads with a religious
or political object.

26
(1995) 2 SCC 161
27
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995

8
POWER AND PENALTIES UNDER THE CABLE ACT

Where any of these officers have motivation to trust that arrangements of the Act have been
or am being repudiated by a link administrator, they may seize and appropriate hardware
utilized by the link administrator for working the link organize.

RESTRICTIVE ACCESS SYSTEM (CAS)

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2002 presented what is
prevalently known as the Conditional Access System (CAS). The 2002 correction embedded
segment 4A in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 accommodating
'Transmission of projects through addressable framework' .The 2002 revision was acquainted
with a view with address various challenges identifying with the working of the link business
which the Cable Act of 1995 had neglected to address .28
The revision made it compulsory for each link administrator to transmit or retransmit projects
of pay channels through the addressable framework.

DIGITALISATION OF CABLE TELEVISION

The link business in India developed in an unregulated and disorderly condition. The absence
of direction in the underlying years added to the colossal development and reach of digital
TV. As they developed the quantity of channels limitlessly expanded. Higher station
transferring limit required higher speculations which link owl-molecule were either unwilling
or unfit to make. DTH is in advanced organization. Digitalisation likewise makes a two route
interface with supporters.

PRIVATE BROADCASTING

The entry of STAR TV through satellite broadcasting in 1992 smashed the imposing business
model of DD (Kumar, 1998). From two TV slots before 1991, Indian watchers were
presented to more than fifty channels by 1996, while there are more than 200 channels today.
The underlying achievement of the channels had a snowball impact - more outside software
engineers and Indian business people hailed off their own particular renditions. Programming
makers rose to take into account the programming blast overnight. Some ability originated
from the film business, some from promoting and some from news coverage. The spread of
satellite stations like BBC, CNN, NDTV, AajTak, Zee, Sun, ETV and others prompted
extraordinary rivalry to DD as well as among the different private stations. No of satellite TV
28
The Registrar of Interconnect Agreements (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Regulation, 2004.

9
slots normally prompted the passage of offered an assortment of stations all under one
rooftop to the we just decision of watching DD.

POLITICAL BROADCASTING
B.V. Keskar, Minister for Information and Broadcasting from 1952 to 1962, went one stage
better. Political analyses were communicated from Delhi alone and transferred all through the
administration. Political remark separated, AIR did not offer articulation to sees reproachful
of the administration or of any piece of the foundation even in chats on general subjects.
Government guidelines on what could or couldn't be said over the AIR were issued to Station
Directors (SDs). The Station chiefs were relied upon to settle matters 'carefully' with
television show visitors and scholars on the off chance that they attempt to transgress the
limits of what was reasonable.

CHAPTER IV

The copyright segment of the Consensus Agreement was executed in 1976 with the entry of
the Act and its cable television provisions. The Act remains as a trade off, throwing link's
copyright liable totally in the form of the Consensus Agreement.

A. THE COPYRIGHT LIABILITY OF CABLE SYSTEMS

Section 111 of the Act, administering the copyright obligation of the link business, has been
named "by a wide margin the longest and most specialized segment of the new Copyright
Act." The push of section 111 is the give to qualified link frameworks of an obligatory permit
to convey all signs allowable under FCC controls, and the prerequisite of a copyright
eminence instalment for the utilization of far off, non-arrange signals, in view of the link
frameworks' incomes. Once ascertained, the eminence is semi every year saved with the
Register of Copyrights, whence it is yearly circulated by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal to
copyright petitioners. In case of a question, the Tribunal is engaged to direct a procedure to
decide how the expenses ought to be dispersed. The Tribunal likewise has specialist to adjust
the rates for far off flag importation, keeping in mind the end goal to make up for changes in
supporter rates, swelling or FCC directions. Completely consented to; section ll's obligatory
permit arrangements release all copyright risk for link frameworks. The mandatory permit
isn't accessible, notwithstanding, to retransmission bearers. Never imported the less, an
exception from copyright obligation under section 111(a)(3) is accessible to specific bearers.

10
B. The "Passive Carrier" Exemption

1. Statutory Requirements

Under the dialect of section 111(a) (3), a transporter must meet four discrete prerequisites to
pick up an exclusion. In the first place, the bearer may not practice control over the substance
of the essential transmission. This denial incorporates altering or comparable impedance
either with the program itself or with promoting and station declarations. second, the
transporter isn't allowed to control the specific beneficiaries of the retransmission or
"auxiliary transmission."

The transporter meets this prerequisite when it works as a typical bearer, making its
administrations accessible to all. Third, the bearer's exercises must comprise exclusively of
giving correspondences channels to the utilization of others. Accordingly, the excluded
transporter won't begin its own particular programming, or generally put to its own particular
utilize the correspondences benefit it gives. Fourth, the bearer may not have any immediate or
roundabout control over the choice of the essential transmission. A "choosing" transporter is
liable to full copyright obligation. under this plan, a conventional basic transporter, for
example, AT&T is absolved from copyright risk. Since the sender as opposed to the bearer
controls the substance, choice and the beneficiaries of a phone transmission, the phone
organization does close to give correspondences channels to the utilization of others. In fact,
the basic role of the uninvolved transporter exception was to guarantee AT&T's opportunity
from copyright obligation for sure of its retransmissions. A customary point-to-point
microwave transporter is additionally excluded under the statute when the link framework
utilizing the bearer chooses which flag it wishes to import. Truly, this has been the situation.
Hence, gave the bearer does not alter the retransmission, it neither chooses nor controls the
substance of the essential transmission. Accepting it doesn't control the beneficiaries of the
auxiliary transmission, it is doing close to giving correspondences channels to the utilization
of others. In carrying on across the country superstation appropriation, be that as it may, a
satellite resaler assumes a part that is far less latent than that of its customary partners. In any
case, a 1982 government re-appraising choice stretched out the inactive bearer exclusion to a
satellite resaler.

11
 CHAPTER V

FOREIGN COPYRIGHT ACTS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

A. UK Copyright Act 195629

Section l4 (8) of the UK Copyright Act 1956 gave that such works were to be taken to be
seen or heard by a paying group of onlookers on the off chance that they were seen or heard
by people who had been conceded for instalment to where the communicate or program was
to be seen or heard, or had been conceded for instalment to a position of which that place
framed part. Correspondence to the Public of Their Television Broadcasts; Broadcasting
associations appreciate the privilege to approve or restrict the correspondence to the general
population of their transmissions. The privilege is, notwithstanding, limited to people in
general execution of transmissions instead of sound communicates and exercisable just if the
correspondence to the general population is made in places available to the general
population against instalment of an extra charge.

B. SATELLITE CONVENTION 1974

The Satellite Convention 1974 obliges contracting States to ensure the program-
conveying signals, yet does not make any rights for copyright proprietors. Article 2 which is
a focal article obliges contracting states to take satisfactory measures to keep the
appropriation on or from its domain of any program-conveying signal by any wholesaler for
whom the flag.

29
UK Copyright Act 1956

12
 CONCLUSION
Rapidly advancing technologies and the booming industry in infotainment has far
outpaced legislation in the broadcasting arena 30. The response of the legislature has been
sorely inadequate if not muddle headed and knee jerk. The government has been conscious of
the need for a law on, convergence for over six years but has rest content with stop-gap and
short sighted measures. While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, to whom
regulatory powers have been delegated, is with its technical expertise, in a position to deal
with issues of carriage, it is not equipped to deal with issues of content. This is an area which
remains unaddressed and is of pressing relevance. The content of news and entertainment has
a profound impact on social mores and sensibilities and has the power mould and manipulate
the minds of over a billion people. 31 With a broadcasting industry that has gone largely
unregulated for years, consumerism and sensitisation of news have overtaken newsworthiness
and intellectual debate. While moral policing in the “broadcasting industry is undesirable,
there must be, either effective self regulation or as the SC directed in the Hero Cup judgment,
a truly autonomous regulator as free from the shackles of government as from private
monopolies and agendas.32 Cable television system operators located antennas in areas with
good reception, picked up broadcast station signals and then distributed them by coaxial cable
to subscribers for a fee in USA. Cable television (originally called CATV or community
antenna television) was developed in the late 1940's for communities unable to receive TV
signals because of terrain or distance from TV stations. The goal of copyright laws, in
particular, is to provide a financial incentive to authors to produce original works by granting
them control over the use of their products. Thus the Cable Television has grown a lot from
its recognition in early 1940s and has reached to a new wavelength33.

30
Dr V K Ahuja, Law Of Copyright And Neighbouring Rights: National And International Perspectives, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths, 2nd Edition 2007
31
T R SrinivasaIyengar, The Copyright Act, 1957, Universal Law Publication, 6 th Edition 2008
32
V K Ahuja, Law Relating To Intellectual Property Rights, Lexis Nexis Student Series, Reprint 2012
33
P. Narayannan, Intellectual Property Law, Eastern Law House, Third Edition 2012

13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY RESOURCES

Statutes- Acts and Conventions

 Satellite Convention 1974

 UK Copyright Act 1956
 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995, s 2(g).
 Copyright Act 1957, s 37(1)
 Rome Convention 1961, art 3(f)
 Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 s.57, Sch.5 paras 6,7,
 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 4’
 The Government of India Act, 1935, Section 129
 The PrasarBharati (Broadcating Corporation of India) Act, 1990
 The Cinematograph Act, 1918

SECONDARY RESOURCES

DICTIONARY

 Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition

Books

 Dr V K Ahuja, Law Of Copyright And Neighbouring Rights: National And

International Perspectives, Lexis NexisButterworths, 2nd Edition 2007
 Kiran Prasad, Media Law In India, Wolters Kluwer, 1st Edition 2011
 T R SrinivasaIyengar, The Copyright Act, 1957, Universal Law Publication, 6th
Edition 2008
 V K Ahuja, Law Relating To Intellectual Property Rights, Lexis Nexis Student Series,
Reprint 2012
 P. Narayannan, Intellectual Property Law, Eastern Law House, Third Edition 2012
 Stanley M. Besen, Copyright Liability For Cable Television, Jstor (Accessed 6 Oct
2017)

ARTICLES

 Cable Television And Copyright Liability (Cbs, Inc.V. Teleprompter Corp.), Volume
48 Issue 2 Volume 48, December 1973, Number 2, St. John's Law Review.
 Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright And Control Over New Technologies Of Dissemination,
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 7 (Nov., 2001), Pp. 1613-1647.
 George R. Borsari Jr., Rachel O. Davis, Cable Television, Jurimetrics, Vol. 24, No. 2
(Winter 1984), Pp. 179-186.

14
 Richard A. Posner, The Appropriate Scope Of Regulation In The Cable Television
Industry, The Bell Journal Of Economics And Management Science, Vol. 3, No. 1
(Spring, 1972), Pp. 98-129.
 Federal And State Regulation Of Cable Television: An Analysis Of The New Fcc
Rules Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1971, No. 6 (Feb., 1972), Pp. 1151-1197.
 Cable Television And Copyright Royalties, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3
(Jan., 1974), Pp. 554-579.
 Stephen Hopkins Willard, A New Method Of Calculating Copyright Liability For
Cable Rebroadcasting Of Distant Television Signals, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 94,
No. 6 (May, 1985), Pp. 1512-1528.
 Jules F. Simon, The Collapse Of Consensus: Effects Of The Deregulation Of Cable
Television Columbia Law Review, Vol. 81, No. 3 (Apr., 1981), Pp. 612-638.

15