INTRODUCTION

Genuinely when we view a cricket match in a gallery or a live concert of any celebrity in a
programme or even listen to unplugged sound recordings of any singer, we just take up the
leisure of the subject that is displayed. Most of us or perhaps very seldom people know that
these programmes or matches that we view can also be infringed or forged technically and
sold
off into piracy marketing. For these variant issues, the Government has taken up a bold step
and provided protection to the Broadcasting Channels and the broadcaster who has been
infringed under the Copyright Act. To speak in a broader sense, the broadcasting rights were
totally unrecognizable or perhaps kept as a diminished part of protection under the laws. It
could be understood that these laws did not show any vibrant existence until 1994. Making
them legal was a strong prospective as there was no such regulations that barred the usage of
broadcasted elements and hence, it termed a leniency of infringing the original broadcasters
work, violating his authenticity. A performer who worked hard on his piece of innovation
was
left to regardless loss of his capacity to create a masterpiece for himself upon his own name
that has been put up on the television for visualizing.
The Copyright Act has amended the old law and replaced a new law in favor of the
Broadcasting Category. It has been incorporated in the Intellectual Property Law which
provides protection of Broadcaster and the Programmes which would not amount to
infringement of broadcasting rights under Article 37 and 39 of the Copyright (Amendment)
Act, 1994 respectively.
Meaning of Broadcasting Rights
The term Broadcasting is in itself a wider term. It is the most essential part of running
communication across the billions of Indian Crowd. With the growth of technology and
science, the advent of telecommunications, broadcasting and multimedia started to evolve
and
gradually started to reach the Zenith of the public at large. It seems that it is an inevitable
source of dissemination of entertainment to the developing countries and also a quicker
method
of delivering information. The entire scenario changed after the amendment of Section 37 and
39 of the Copyright Act 1957, which took into consideration the ailments of the Broadcasters
in a huge and larger frame.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 hasnt mentioned or defined Broadcasting Rights
anywhere in the Act but it sure did define Broadcast and Communication to the Public in
sheer sense. Section 2 of the Copyright Act states1:
Mr. Zubair Ahmed Guest faculty and Research Scholar, Department of Law, Assam University, Silchar.
Volume 3 Issue 1
2(dd) "broadcast" means communication to the public
(i) By any means of wireless diffusion, whether in any one or more of the forms of signs,
sounds or visual images; or
(ii) By wire, and includes a re-broadcast;"
"2(ff) "communication to the public" means making any work or performance available for
being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or
diffusion other than by issuing physical copies of it, whether simultaneously or at places and
times chosen individually, regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees,
hears
or otherwise enjoys the work or performance so made available.
Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, communication through satellite or cable or
any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of
residence including residential rooms of any hotel or hostel shall be deemed to be
communication to the public;"
While discussing about Broadcasting Rights, it is equally important to know what are these
rights and how did these bundle of rights came into existence. Actually in the clearest sense
Broadcasting Rights are those rights which have been duly conferred to Broadcasting
Organizations such as the Television , Radio or other telecasting programmes known as
Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Section 37 of the Act significantly provides every
broadcasting organization with such rights in respect to their broadcasts.
It can limit infringement2 against:
Re-broadcasting the broadcasts.
Causing the broadcast can be heard or seen by the public to be heard or seen by the
public on payment of any charges.
Making any sound recording or video recording of the broadcast.
Making any reproduction of such sound recording or video recording where such initial
recording was done without license or where it was licensed for any such purpose not
envisaged by such license.
Selling or hiring to the public or offering for sale or hire, any such sound recording or
visual recording of the broadcasts.
The total term of this bundle of rights shall be of Twenty-five years from the day of
commencement of the broadcast and during the subsistent period, if anyone without the prior
consent of the owner or license uses them,it amount to an infringement of these rights. To add
up furthermore, the Information Technology Act3 under Section 43, states that a person would
be liable to pay Rupees 1 crore as compensation for unauthorized downloading.
1 Wadhera B L, , (2007), Law Relating to Intellectual Property- Patents, Trade Marks, Copyrights, Designs,
Geographical Indications, Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout- Design, Protection of Plans Varieties and
Farmers' Rights, TRIPS. , 4th Edn., (Paperback), Universal Law Publishing.p-415.
2 Ibid.
3 The Information Technology Act 2002.
Volume 3 Issue 1
According to World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)4, a broadcasters rights are
assembled as:
Safeguard costly investments in televising sporting events
Recognize and reward the entrepreneurial efforts of broadcasting organizations
Recognize and reward their contribution to diffusion of information and culture
Simultaneously, there is an incorporation of the performers right which is provided under
Section 38 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 which protects the rights of the
performers like actors, musicians, dancers, jugglers, acrobats, etc. and these are duly called
the
Performers Rights.
International Perspective
As the rage for competition is increasing between the Private Sector especially the Multi
National Corporation , the government is deemed to provide protection to those who are more
into the international regime of broadcasting .In the present scenario, the protection are only
available to those who are collected under the transmissions made through Satellites (wireless
networks) . They are conveniently protected from signal thefts or signal breakages caused due
to interruption of an illegal or unauthorized body. The first International convention on the
Broadcasting Rights which protects these rights is the Rome convention 1961,5 it established
that broadcasters have the right to prohibit but not to authorize the fixation, reproduction of
fixation, and the re-broadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts. It also stated that the
broadcasters have this right for 20 years from the day of broadcasting. Then came the
Brussels
Satellite Convention 19746. The Brussels Convention related to the Distribution of
Programme, protects broadcasters rights by allowing members to prevent dissemination of
programme-carrying signals by any distributor for whom the signals are not intended. The
duration is to be decided by national law. After that arrived the TRIPs Agreement, 19947 ,
provides broadcasting organizations have the right to control the fixation, reproduction,
wireless re-broadcasting and communication to the public of broadcasts . The two recent
treaties were the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 19968 , provided
equitable remuneration for wireless broadcasting or for any communication to the public of
phonograms and WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 1996.
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission9, the Supreme Court
of
United States held that it is constitutional to obligate radios licensees to provide time and
attention to matters of public concern. The Fairness Doctrine simply enforces the obligation
to
the community that is owed by one who is granted a license for a limited publicly beneficial
property.
4 Broadcasting & Media Rights in Sport, Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/ip-sport/en/broadcasting.html
(accessed on 4th September,2014)
5 Girish Kumar R, Relfi Paul, Rights of Broadcasting Organizations: Do We Need Legal Reform?, Indian
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, No.5, 2009, p.7
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 395. US 367 (1969);
Volume 3 Issue 1
Similarly, in Green v. Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand10, where presenter Hughie
Green lost a Privy Council decision when he sought to establish a format right to his
programme concept, Opportunity Knocks. Simply speaking, the Law Lords who made up the
Court reaffirmed the general principle in UK law that on the facts of this case there could
be no copyright in an idea, and they established that there could be no copyright in the format
of this game-show.
In Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria11, The European Court of Human Rights
has frequently stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic
society, in particular where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of
general interest, which the public is moreover entitled to receive. Such an undertaking cannot
be successfully accomplished unless it is grounded in the principle of pluralism, of which the
State is the ultimate guarantor.
In 1998, WIPO showed concerns toward the subject of updating the protection of the
broadcasting organizations over signal thefts, particularly in the digital environment. It
concentrated on proposing upon rights based Treaty, would provide a new interface
towards
the Intellectual Property Rights by inserting right to broadcast signals. It is so because signal
piracy not only disrupts or threatens the revenues of sales and advertising of broadcasters
who
have paid up upon the exclusive rights of the shows live coverage especially sports events
but
also proves a risk of reluctantly reducing the values of these rights and the revenue and
expenditure of the sports organizations. The indigenous laws of the State provides with the
option of tackling such menace by shutting down illegal websites, but despite such efforts
these
broadcasting organizations are keen to gear up protection at the international level.12
The International Copyright Order, 1999 under Clause (4) has strictly referred to Para 3 of the
Act and established that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act shall apply to a
Broadcasting
Organization and a performer in a World Trade Organization Country mentioned in Part VI
of
the Schedule13.
The Recommendation (20th December,2000)14 of the Committee of Ministers to Member
States on the Independence and Functions of Regulatory Authorities for the Broadcasting
Sector stated that When the task of rationing the broadcast spectrum is left to the
government,
government and its allies tend to end up as the greatest beneficiaries. But even when a
government approaches this task in good faith, fear of losing a license can induce
broadcasters
to practice self-censorship and toe the official line. As one observer noted wryly, So long as
the [government] can determine which individuals shall be endowed with larynxes, it does
not
need additional power to determine what shall be said.
The right to broadcast sports events is granted usually for a given territory, per country, on an
exclusive basis. Broadcasters consider exclusivity necessary in order to guarantee the value
of
a given sports program. The value consideration is in terms of the number of viewers and the
amount of advertising dollars an event attracts.The international sphere is reluctant to provide
as much as possible protection to the broadcasting panel so that the rights dont get misused.
10 (1989 )RPC 700 PC.
11 28 October 1993, Application No. 13914/88 (European Court of Human Rights).
12 Viviana Munoz and Andrew Chege, The proposed WIPO Ttreaty on the Protection of Broadcasting
Organization: Are New Rights Warranted and will Developing Countries Benefit, SOUTH CENTRE, Sep.
3,2006.
13 Ibid.
14 Recommendation (2000)23 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Independence and
Functions of Regulatory Authorities for the Broadcasting Sector, 20 December 2000.WIPO.
Volume 3 Issue 1
The International Olympic Committee established the Olympic Broadcasting Services in the
year 2001 in order to regulate and authenticate every broadcasting of an Olympic game held
around the year. Recently, The IOC awarded the Japan Consortium the broadcast rights in
Japan for the Olympic Winter Games 2014 in Sochi and the Olympic Games 2016 in Rio de
Janeiro. The Japan Consortium, which includes NHK and the National Association of
Commercial Broadcasters of Japan, has acquired the broadcast rights across all media
platforms, including free-to-air television, subscription television, internet and mobile.
Constitutional Perspectives of the Broadcasting Rights
India is the Third largest broadcasting market in the global field and it indeed covers a huge
space for social media so the aspect of it leads to greater expectations of converging a large
segment of people towards it. The media, through broadcasting, plays a pivotal role as well as
a
fundamental basic in providing information, small or large and knowledge to all section of
people. It acts as a powerful sector of imposing influence into the society at large. With the
latest growth in technological diversity, it can provide live telecasts, delayed telecasts,
highlights of an event or even the video and audio clips in respect to such events. So
basically,
if all such segments are being telecasted then the questions of origin, ownership, sale and
acquisition are not beyond legal perspectives. The important legal regulations for protection
of
broadcasting media are as follows:15
1. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. Copyright Act, 1957.
3. Prasar Bharati Act, 1990.
4. Cable Television Network Act, 1995.
5. Information Technology Act, 2000.
6. Sports Broadcasting Signal Ordinance, 2007.
Concentrating on the framework of the Constitutional law in India, the power and privilege of
media is given under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution which states the Freedom of
Speech
and Expression. In Historic Judgment of,The Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket
Association of Bengal (CAB)16, the Supreme Court has considerably widened the scope and
extent of the freedom of speech and expression and held that the Government has no
monopoly
on the electronic media and a citizen has, Article 19 (1) (a), a right to telecast and broadcast
to
the viewers/listeners through electronic media Television and Radio or any important event.
The Government can impose restrictions on such a right only on the grounds specified in
Clause (2) of Art. 19 and not on any other ground. State monopoly on electronic media is not
mentioned in Clause (2) of Art. 19. The Court directed the Government to set up an
independent autonomous broadcasting authority which will free Doordarshan and Akashvani
from the shackles of Government control and ensure conditions in which the freedom of
speech and expression can be meaningful and effectively enjoyed by one and all. Justice
Reddy
in his concurring judgment suggested that suitable amendments should be made to the Indian
Telegraph Act keeping in view of modern technological developments in the field of
information and technology. Referring to the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of
India
Act, 1990, the Judge said that it could notbe brought to force because the Governments did
not
choose to issue a notification for its enforcement.
15 Supra, Note 5.
16 (1995) 2 S. C.C.161, 224, 27
Volume 3 Issue 1
The Supreme Court also gave the decision17the right to freedom of speech and expression
also
includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated,
informed and entertained.The Court clarified, Merely because an organization may earn
profit from an activity whose character is predominantly covered by Article 19(1)(a), it would
not convert the activity into one involving Article 19(1) (g) (business, in which monopolies
are
not unconstitutional).
Broadcasting Rights in India under Intellectual Property Law
A number of conventions have been responsible for the protection of the Broadcasting Rights
in India. If we track back to the history of India, the British Government has passed and
enumerated a legislation engaging the broadcasters a monopoly over the communications and
broadcasting under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In original sense, the Indian Copyright
Act
of 1914 and 1957 were a revised on the British Copyright Act of 1911 and 1956 and due to
the
expansion in the usage of new technological advent and various international conventions and
legal frameworks it became a mandate to amend the copyright laws. At that time, the rights of
broadcasting organizations were not inclusive under the Copyright Act of 1957, but later in
1994, the amendment brought the broadcasting rights into light.
Section 37 of The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2004 provides Broadcast reproduction
right
It says:
(1) Where any programme is broadcast by radio-diffusion by the Government or any other
broadcasting authority, a special right to be known as "broadcast reproduction right" shall
subsist in such programme.
(2) The Government or other broadcasting authority, as the case may be, shall be the owner
of
the broadcast reproduction right and such right shall subsist until twenty-five years from the
beginning of the calendar year next following year in which the programme is first broadcast.
(3) During the continuance of a broadcast reproduction right in relation to any programme,
any person who, ---
(a) without the licence of the owner of the right ---
( i ) rebroadcasts the programme in question or any substantial part thereof; or
( ii ) causes the programme in question or any substantial part thereof to be heard
in public; or
(b) without the licence of the owner of the right to utilise the broadcast for the
purpose of making a record recording the programme in question or any
substantial part thereof, makes any such record,shall be deemed to infringe that
broadcast reproduction right.
Section 39 of the Act18 puts a slight leniency to the Act. The Copyright (Amendment) Act,
1994 has recognized certain acts which do not cause any kind of infringement upon the
broadcasting reproduction rights. They are:
17Ibid.
18 The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994.
Volume 3 Issue 1
Making of any sound or video recording for private purpose or for bonafide teaching or
research; or
Use consistent with fair dealing of excerpts of broadcast in reporting a current event or
for a bonafide review, teaching or research; or
Any such act with necessary adaptations and modifications which do not constitute
infringement of copyright under Section 52 of the Act19.
The exceptions are hereby provided so that a person who is doing a broadcast on his own risk
and which is good for public at large would be considered as a good cause for the society.
These types of broadcasting events are also considerable for a research or to enhance
knowledge for a particular subject.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999 has incorporated Section 40A along with Section 40
and provided power to the Central Government to application of Chapter VIII to
Broadcasting
Organizations in certain other countries as well. The Section20 says that:
1. If the Central Government is satisfied that a foreign country with which India is in a
binding Treaty or is a party to a particular Convention relating to Broadcasting
Organizations has made or undertaken or as such the Central Government thinks to
expedient to require protection in that foreign country as permissible under the Act,
then it may , by order publish an Official Gazette under which the provisions of
Chapter VIII would apply as
a. To broadcasting organizations whose headquarters are situated in a country to
which the order relates or the broadcast was transmitted from a transmitter
situated in the country to which the order relates thought the headquarter is
situated in India or has been made and broadcasted from India; or
b. To performances that have taken place outside India to which the order relates
in a manner as if it took place in India; or
c. To performances that are incorporated in the form of sound recording published
in a country where the order relates and it were seem to publish in India; or
d. To performances that are not fixed of a sound recording broadcast by a
broadcasting organization whose are situated in a country to which the order
relates or the broadcast was transmitted from a transmitter situated in the
country to which the order relates thought the headquarter is situated in India or
has been made and broadcasted from India.
2. Every order made under sub-section (1)21 may provide that:
a. The provisions stated under Chapter VIII shall apply either generally or in
relation to such class or classes of broadcasts as may be specified in the order.
b. The terms of the copyrights of broadcasting organizations in India shall not exit
such term as is conferred by the law pertaining to such order.
c. The enjoyment of these rights under Chapter VIII would subject to
accomplishment of such conditions or formalities, if any, as the order specifies.
d. Chapter VIII or any part thereof shall not apply to broadcasts before the
commencement of the order.
e. In case of ownership of rights of broadcasting organizations, the provisions laid
down in Chapter VIII shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as per
19 Ibid.
20 Section 40, The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999.
21 Ibid.
Volume 3 Issue 1
the Central Government having regard to the laws available in the foreign
country.
Similarly, under Section 42A, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999 has strictly ascertained
that the Central Government has the power to restrict rights of foreign broadcasting
organizations if it thinks that a foreign country hasnt provided adequate protection of rights
to a broadcasting organization or the citizens of such country are not incorporated or
domiciled in India under such provision.
Statutory License Introduced by 2012 Amendments
Section 31 D introduced by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 grants a statutory license
to
broadcasting organisations desirous of broadcasting already published literary or musical
works and sound recordings. The broadcasting organisation shall give prior notice to the right
holders and pay royalty at the rates fixed by the Copyright Board. The names of authors and
performers shall be announced during the broadcast. The broadcasting organisation shall
maintain all records of the broadcast, books of account and render them to the owner. Before
the introduction of Section 31D, access to copyright works by broadcasters was dependent on
voluntary licensing. As a result, unreasonable terms and conditions were being imposed by
the
copyright owners and societies22. The sole purpose of this section seems to be to allow the
broadcasting organisations to synchronize musical works with their visual broadcasts. For
example, TV serials can now use film songs in synchronization with their visuals.Visual
works
have been excluded from this section. So it is unclear how licensing will work for
broadcasting
of film clips or visuals. Also this amendment does not clarify whether a broadcast of a
literary
or musical work is itself a published work. Going by definition a broadcast can be considered
a
published work as it is communicated to the public by means other than by issuing copies.
But this stands in contradiction to the exclusive reproduction rights given to broadcasting
organisations giving rise to ambiguity.
Trends In Protection Of Broadcasting Rights
The protection of Broadcasting Rights are molding up a fundamental shape since the late
90s.
It began with the demand for protecting the authenticity of a particular broadcast of an event
that made its ability to shape up or incorporate itself into a self-made law.
In India, this trending began with the landmark case of, The Secretary, Ministry of I & B v.
Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB)23, where the Supreme Court has considerably widened
the
scope and extent of the freedom of speech and expression and held that the Government has
no
monopoly on the electronic media and a citizen has, Article 19 (1) (a), a right to telecast and
broadcast to the viewers/listeners through electronic media Television and Radio or any
important event.
After the judgment of Bengal Association, follows up the Union of India v. Motion Picture
Association24, the Supreme Court finds precedent in reasoning the mandatory sharing and
broadcasting telecasts in social interest and lays down that educational and scientific films
ought to be aired in public interest.
22 ZakirThomas, Overview of Changes to the Indian Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights,
Vol. 17, July 2012, pp. 324-334
23( 1995) 2 S.C.C.161, 224, 27.
24 AIR 1999 SC 2334
Volume 3 Issue 1
Then came the Ten Sports v. Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group25, the Supreme Court
granted the First open-ended Anton Pillar in a legal row over the TV broadcasting rights of
the
India-Pakistan cricket match . Upon this controversy , provided mandatory must carry
provisions and introduced via legislation it shall be a strict mandate that Sports Signals ought
to be shared freely to maximal population in keeping with judicially acknowledged social
needs incorporating the Right to Entertainment and Human development.
In 2005, another case made a landmark impact on the broadcasting industry. The M/S Zee
Telefilms and others v. Union of India26, the Supreme Court by 3:2 bench said that since the
BCCI is a non-autonomous statutory body , it would not be subjected to the deep and
pervasive control of the government. Similarly, a writ petition for the same was filed under
Article 32 which was later dismissed by the Court as not maintainable against BCCI.
In Prasar Bharati v.Sahara TV Network Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.27, the Delhi High Court held that a
news channel cannot be compared on the same platform as of a commercial channel it has to
be
ascertained that it is regulated on the same clauses as those given for Prasar Bharti except for
the case that the maximum cap-limit of two minutes shall be extended to seven minutes in 24
hours. Besides that, it was further taken into consideration that they shall be given exclusively
for cricket news without commencing any commercial programme or advertisements, during
or
after the cricket news. Anyhow, they are at the liberty to show any important news or events
occurring during that period as well.
The very same year Doordarshan (DD) collaborated with the Ministry of I&B and passed an
ordinance called the Broadcasting Signals Ordinance, 200728, which would mandate the
private
channels to telecast the live feed of every cricket match with Doordarshan, but on another
point, the broadcasting channels have secured their rights of telecasting those matches.
The next controversial scenario took place between Nimbus29 and DD. It was when Nimbus
filed a petition in the Delhi High Court in securing its footage of the Second ODI between
West Indies and India for as to its exclusive rights were concerned .But the Delhi High Court
had set aside the petition allowing DD and its DTH service to use the feed and telecast it from
Nimbus as the craze of cricket matches by the common people are well understood by the
judiciary and hence it did not want to deprive those masses who are eager to watch those
matches so it basically ordered the DD to telecast such feed without any hesitation. The
judiciary and government always impose a compulsion upon the private channels to share
their
footages with DD.
The Beijing Olympics30 was sort of contrary to the other cases discussed above. Here, DD
filed
a petition in front of the Delhi High Court against the private channels for using unauthorized
transmission of the Beijing Olympics which was an exclusive right of the DD. Prasar Bharati
had obtained an order for the same to barring of the telecast to all private channels as DD had
paid a sum of $3 million to the Beijing Olympic Organizers and that such illegal transmission
was damaging their commercial interests. They preferred that the private channels would be
allowed to telecast the event only after getting into an agreement with the Prasar Bharati and
the Beijing Olympic Organizers.
25 (2004) 5 S.C.C 351)
26 AIR 2005 SC 2677.
27 (2006) 32 PTC 779.
28 Supra, Note 5.
29 Ibid.
30 Krishnadas Rajagopal, Olympics Telecast: Prasar Bharati goes to Court, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, Aug.
23,2008
Volume 3 Issue 1
Need of Reform
As per we have analyzed the laws regarding broadcasting, it can be seen that despite the
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 has given a position to the Broadcasters to protect
themselves from infringement, it is not able to handle the technological advancements. The
more the technology is increasing, the more is threat to infringement. The government is
trying
its best to provide an upper level protection to these broadcasters yet they are unable to
implement or draft those laws which are well equipped to provide the maximum protection.
The incorporation of the Sections 40A and 42A have provided a certain limit of adequacy but
there is no remedy for trans-border infringement of copyright. So the Government should
come
up with better ideas of giving the broadcasters a significant recognition besides those
mentioned in Section 37 and also bring up better methods to diminish the controversies of
infringement in the global arena. Another statement made by Legislative would have been the
proposed Broadcast Services Regulation Bill of 2007 which was an attempt to facilitate and
develop the carriage and content of broadcasting in an orderly manner. The Bill is pending
until now.
Conclusion
The rights given to broadcasting organisations in India are actually in mere
consonance with international treaties and conventions which provide for exclusive rights
based approach. Indian law, right from amendments in 1994 to 2012, in this regard has
been particularly modelled on the principles laid down by the Rome Convention
1961and TRIPs Agreement 199431. Developing countries like India and activists supporting
access to knowledge have been pushing harder for a signal- based protection of
broadcasting organisations. The criticism of a signal-based approach is that the rights of
the broadcasters would extinguish the moment the broadcast is made and the signal thereafter
ceases to exist. However, the authors here want to put forth that it is essential,
especially in developing countries like India, to take a liberal approach towards
access to information and that signal based approach is the right one32.
The insertion of new laws have brought a major change in the scenario of Copyright and
hence, have been able to give a certain amount of privilege to the Broadcasting Organizations
yet, these laws are incapable of giving the maximized level of protection due to a number of
loopholes as in the aftermath of the inclusion of these laws the Supreme Court and the other
Courts had to pass many judgments to reduce the controversial streak that has arose overtime.
Right after the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 was passed the first in line arrived the
Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB)33, which had made a
magnanimous constitutional change in the history of Broadcasting. It was a positive
approach.
But later on, a series of judgment had reduced the scope of this act due to disputes over
transmission and ownership. Hence, the best way to provide an impact emphasis to a stronger
set of law is to induce the legislative to come up with more comprehensive laws which gives
the utmost security and protection to the Broadcasting area.
31 Divyanshu Sehgal and Siddharth Mathur, Rights and Duties of Broadcasting Organizations: Analysis of the
WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations,Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.16,
September 2011, pp. 402-408.
32 Ibid.
33 Supra, Note 16.