My Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 51Section 55

Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 79

Provisions considered: Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Brief facts

A major music label sued a social-networking and video-hosting platform, alleging that users uploaded videos and songs embedded with its unlicensed music, and that the platform's advertising-driven business model and format-shifting of uploaded content made it liable as an infringer rather than a passive host. A Single Judge granted an interim injunction requiring the platform to remove infringing content on receipt of a general list of works, without requiring identification of specific URLs. The platform appealed to the Division Bench.

Issues before the Court

1. Is an intermediary hosting user-uploaded content liable for infringement absent actual knowledge of specific infringing material?
2. Does the safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act extend to copyright claims, and what constitutes actual knowledge?
3. Was a blanket take-down injunction without specific identification sustainable?

Court's findings

The Court held that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 grants intermediaries conditional immunity from third-party content claims, and that this safe harbour extends to copyright infringement because the proviso to Section 81 preserves the rights-holder's remedies without excluding intermediaries from Section 79 altogether. Following the Supreme Court's approach in Shreya Singhal, it held that actual knowledge under Section 79(3)(b) ordinarily requires a court order or government notification, not a bare private complaint, unless the notice specifically identifies infringing material.

The Court observed that ancillary technical functions such as format-shifting, indexing or enabling search of uploaded content do not, without more, convert a platform into a primary infringer, since these do not amount to conscious selection or approval of infringing content.

The Court held that an intermediary loses safe harbour only where it possesses specific knowledge of identified infringing works and fails expeditiously to disable access, and found the blanket take-down injunction based on generic lists unsustainable.

Decision

Division Bench modified the interim injunction and remanded the matter, directing the plaintiff to furnish sufficient particulars of infringing content for the platform to act upon.

Cases cited

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Copyright Infringement Digital Platforms Intermediary Liability Online Infringement Safe Harbour