MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
Quick Summary
This case explains when an online platform (an “intermediary”) is responsible for user-posted copyright infringement. The Delhi High Court said: suspicion is not actual knowledge. To lose safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, the platform must know specific illegal items or receive a clear notice identifying them. General awareness or broad alerts are not enough. The injunction against the platform was set aside, and the rights-holder was asked to send a precise removal list.
Issues
- Did the platform have actual knowledge of infringing content?
- Does Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act apply to an intermediary without meeting Section 79 IT Act conditions?
Rules
- Communicating a copyrighted work to the public needs authorization or licence; otherwise, it may be infringement.
- Intermediary liability is governed by Section 79 IT Act (safe harbour) read with the Copyright Act. Liability arises when statutory conditions—like knowledge of specific infringement and failure to act—are satisfied.
- Sections 79 and 81 IT Act and 51(a)(ii) Copyright Act should be read harmoniously.
Facts (Timeline)
Platform & Rights-holder: The Appellant ran a user-driven social platform. The Respondent is a large music label.
2008: The Respondent flagged unauthorised uploads. The Appellant offered Rights Management Tools to help identify and block infringing items.
Post-notice: The Appellant removed flagged items and added them to a filter to block re-uploads.
Dispute: The Respondent claimed several items still remained and alleged the Appellant ignored its notice.
Trial court: An interim injunction was granted against the Appellant. The Appellant appealed.
Arguments
Appellant
- We are an intermediary with safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act.
- We acted on notices, removed content, and used filters to block repeats.
- No specific list/URLs = no actual knowledge; broad claims cannot remove immunity.
Respondent
- Infringing works were available; the platform knew and still benefited from them.
- Preventive tools show awareness; continued availability implies failure to act.
- Sought injunction to stop communication of copyrighted works.
Judgment
The High Court set aside the impugned injunction and allowed the appeal. It directed the Respondent to provide a specific removal list within one week, after which the platform must act promptly.
- Key holding: Suspicion and preventive measures do not equal actual knowledge.
- Harmony of statutes: Apply Section 51(a)(ii) with Section 79 and Section 81 IT Act.
Ratio
An intermediary’s liability needs actual knowledge of specific infringing content or a valid, precise notice. General awareness or suspicion does not trigger liability. Safe harbour under Section 79 continues if the intermediary acts expeditiously on precise notices.
Why It Matters
- Sets a clear threshold for actual knowledge in India’s intermediary law.
- Promotes a workable notice-and-takedown practice using specific URLs.
- Balances copyright enforcement with the realities of user-generated content platforms.
Key Takeaways
- Safe harbour stands until a specific, valid notice is received.
- Suspicion ≠ Knowledge: Filters and monitoring don’t prove knowledge of exact infringements.
- Courts expect cooperation: Rights-holder lists + prompt platform action.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: K-N-O-W = Knowledge Needs On-point URLs & Written notice.
- Pinpoint: Send exact URLs or item IDs.
- Prompt: Intermediary acts quickly and documents action.
- Protect: Filters help, but they don’t replace precise notice.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether the platform had actual knowledge of specific infringements so as to lose Section 79 protection and be liable under Section 51(a)(ii).
Rule
Read Section 79 & 81 IT Act with Section 51(a)(ii) Copyright Act. Liability follows specific knowledge + inaction.
Application
Notices lacked a complete, precise list. The platform removed flagged items and used filters. This did not prove knowledge of each alleged infringement.
Conclusion
No actual knowledge shown. Injunction set aside; Respondent to provide a specific removal list within one week.
Glossary
| Term | Easy Meaning |
|---|---|
| Intermediary | Online service that hosts or transmits user content. |
| Safe Harbour (S.79) | Legal shield for intermediaries if they follow the law and act on valid notices. |
| Actual Knowledge | Knowing about specific illegal items, not just a general idea or suspicion. |
| Notice-and-Takedown | Process where rights-holders send precise notices; platforms remove the flagged content. |
FAQs
Related Cases
Intermediary Safe Harbour (General)
Cases discussing the scope and limits of safe harbour under the IT Act.
IT Act Notice & TakedownCopyright & Platforms
Judgments on platform duties when users upload copyrighted works.
Copyright UGC
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now