- MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

Before

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ABHIDWEEP, SHIVPURI

S.L.P. No. *** / 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

[An appeal preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of Abhidweep, 1960
against the judgment passed by the
Learned Division Bench of High Court at Shivpuri]

IN THE MATTER OF

Author’s Association of Abhidweep ............................................................................. Appellant

v.
Government of DRA ............................................................................................... Respondent 1
Gyanvidya University ............................................................................................. Respondent 2
Nirrikshan ............................................................................................................... Respondent 3
Edufree .................................................................................................................... Respondent 4
Mr. Jyoti Tripathy & Ors. ........................................................................................ Respondent 5

MEMORANDUM filed on behalf of APPELLANT

COUNSEL appearing on behalf of APPELLANT

 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 4

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... 6
Constitutions. ................................................................................................................. 6
Statutes. .......................................................................................................................... 6
Cases. ............................................................................................................................. 6
Treaties & International Agreements. ............................................................................ 8
Commentaries / Digests ................................................................................................. 8
Journals & Reports… ..................................................................................................... 9
Lexicons. ...................................................................................................................... 10
Other Sources… ........................................................................................................... 10
Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................... 11
Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................... 12
Statement of Issues .................................................................................................................. 15
Summary of Arguments. .......................................................................................................... 16
Arguments Advanced............................................................................................................... 17

1.1. Purpose of the Copyright Law is to promote human knowledge.......................................17

1.2. The Mass Digitization Program Does Not Constitute Fair Use ........................................ 18

1.3. Nirrikshan use of the copyrighted works is not “fair use” under the copyright laws. ....... 19

1.3.1. Purpose and Character of the Use ................................................................................ 19

1.3.1.1. Alleged uses are not transformative. ............................................................................ 20

1.3.1.2. Reproducing and storing exact digital copies are not transformative uses ................... 21

1.3.1.3. The libraries’ preservation purpose is not transformative ............................................ 21

1.3.1.4. Displaying large portions of millions of copyrighted books is not transformative ...... 22

1.3.2. Nature of the copyrighted work. .................................................................................... 22

1.3.3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used. ............................................................. 23

1.3.3.1. FindIt services employs more of the copyrighted work than is necessary ..................... 24

Page - 2 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

1.3.3.2. Substantial part may contain the “heart” of the book. .................................................... 24

1.3.4. PDLA services & FindIt services has usurps the market of the original work ............. 25

1.3.4.1. Each Unlicensed Digital Copy Represents a Lost Sale ................................................. 26

1.3.4.2. Nirrikshan destroyed existing and emerging markets for digital books ....................... 26

1.3.4.3. Risk and Immense Consequences of a Data Breach has been overlooked… ................ 26

2.1. Constitutional rights are not an absolute ............................................................................. 29

2.2. Right to Information vis-à-vis the Copyright Laws ............................................................ 30

2.3. Author’s have exclusive rights of reproduction of their copyrighted work ........................ 31

2.4. Author’s have exclusive rights of communication to the public of their copyrighted work 32

Prayer for Relief. ...................................................................................................................... 34

Page - 3 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

§ Section
§§ Sections
¶ Paragraph
¶¶ Paragraphs
A.C. Appellate Cases
AAA Authors Association of Abhidweep
AIR All India Reporters
All ER All England Law Report
Anr. Another
App. Appellant
Art. Article
Bom. Bombay
CJI Chief Justice of India
C.W.N. Calcutta Weekly Notes
Cal Calcutta
Cir Circuit
Co. Company
D. Ariz District of Arizona
D. Minn District of Minnesota
DRA Democratic Republic of Abhidweep
Del Delhi
Edn. Edition
F.3d Federal Reporter
GoA Government of Abhidweep
GU Gyanvidya University
Harv. L. Rev. Harvard Law Review
I.C Indian Cases
ILR Indian Law Report
IPRs Intellectual Property Rights
Inc. Incorporation

Page - 4 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

IndLaw Indian Law

Ind. J. L. & Tech. Indian Journal of Law and Technology
J. Justice
J&K Jammu & Kashmir
KB King’s Bench
Ltd. Limited
Mad. Madras
No. Number
NUJS L. Rev. NUJS Law Review
Ors Others
p. page
P / para paragraph
PDLA Public Digital Library of Abhidweep
PTC Patent & Trade Mark Cases
Pvt Private
RPC Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases
S.Ct State Court
S.D.N.Y. Southern District of New York
SC Supreme Court
SCALE Supreme Court Almanac
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
Sec. Section
Supp. Supplementary
TRIPS Trade related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
U.S. United States
v. versus
Vol. Volume
WLR Weekly Law Reports

Page - 5 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONS

Constiution of DRA Art. 19, 21, 21A, 21B, 136… ......................................... 11, 12, 16, 32, 33

Constiution of India Art. 19, 21, 21 a, 21b… ........................................................ 12, 16, 31, 32

U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 8 .................................................................................................... 17

STATUTES

The Copyright Act of DRA, 1960...............................................9, 12, 13, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33
The Copyright Act of India, 1957 .............................................. 9, 12, 13, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33

TABLE OF CASES

1. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 923 (2d Cir.
1994) ................................................................................................................ 22, 23, 24, 30
2. Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd. (2002) R.P.C. 5 .......................................................... 20
3. Associated Newspapers Group Plc v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. & Ors. (1986) R.P.C.
515 ..................................................................................................................................... 20
4. Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings Inc. 931 F. Supp. 2d 537, 557 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
21, 2013) ............................................................................................................................ 22
5. Atl. Recording Corp v. Howell, 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 981 (D. Ariz. 2008) ........................ 39
6. Baxter v. MCA Inc, PTC 385 (Del) .................................................................................... 20
7. BDA Pvt. Ltd. v. Paul P.John & Anr. 2008 (37) PTC 569 (Del) ....................................... 20
8. Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d at 251 ................................................................................. 17, 19
9. Campbell v. Acuff‐Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 574 (1994) ... 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29
10. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1226 (D. Minn. 2008) .............. 30
11. Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 705 (2d Cir. 2013) ..................................................... 22, 24
12. Castle Rock Entm’t , Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 1998) ....... 19
13. Construction Equipment Ltd & Anr v. Action Construction Equipment Pvt Ltd & Anr 1999
PTC 36 (Del.). p.48,49 ....................................................................................................... 33
14. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada 19 (2004) 1 SCR 339 (Canada)..... 22

Page - 6 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

15. Chancellors, Masters & Scholars of Oxford University v. Narendera Publishing House
2008 (106) D.R.J. 482 ........................................................................................................ 17
16. Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d152, 174 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................................. 20
17. Donald Irwin Robertson v. Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osbrom Inc 146 F.Supp. 795 ..... 20
18. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1 .......................................... 28, 30
19. ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors. 2008 (38) PTC 477 (Del)......... 20
20. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) ........... 17
21. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 344 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) ................................................. 20
22. Fraser-Woodword Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corporation & Anr., (1964) 1 All.ER
465 ..................................................................................................................................... 20
23. Govind v. Slate of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148 ..................................................... 33
24. Hanfstaengl v. W. H. Smith and Sons ([1905] 1 Ch. D. 519).............................................. 21
25. Harper Collins Publishers L.L.C. v. Gawker Media LLC 721 F. Supp. 2d 303, 306
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) ........................................................................................................... 24, 28
26. Harper & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) .... 19, 25, 28, 29
27. Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd. v. Paramount Film Service Ltd. (1934) 1 Ch.593 ............... 20
28. Heim v. Universal Pictures Co., 154 F.2d 480, 488 (2d Cir. 1946) .................................... 28
29. Hubbard v. Vosper, (1972) 2 WLR 389 ....................................................................... 19, 20
30. Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland (2000) R.P.C. 604 ................................................... 20
31. India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (53)
PTC 586 (Del) ................................................................................................................... 20
32. Indictment, U.S. v. Swartz, No. 11-CR-10260 (D. Mass. July 14, 2011) .......................... 32
33. Indira Jaising v Registrar General 2003 (4) SCALE 643 ................................................... 36
34. Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998) ................................ 23
35. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. 336 F.3d 811, 818 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................... 27
36. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd. (1964) 1 All.ER 465 .......... 20, 32
37. Lawton v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 143 Cal. App. 2d 256, 262-63 (1956)........................... 30
38. London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 169 (D. Mass. 2008)................. 29
39. Messes Macmillan and Company Ltd. v. The Little Flower Company (1960) ILR Madras
484 ..................................................................................................................................... 30
40. M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. Anparasuraman, AIR 1960 Mad. 410 ................. 17, 20, 22
41. New Era Publ’ns Int’l., ApS v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 904 F.2d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 1990)....... 26
42. New York Times Co. Inc. et al v Tasini et al 533 US 48 ................................................... 27

Page - 7 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

43. Parveen Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Rajasthan and Anr. 1996 (1) WLN 312………24
44. Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd. (1999) FSR 610.............................. 20
45. R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films & Ors. 1978 (4) SCC 118 ........................................ 20, 25, 37
46. Romesh Chowdary v. Khali Mohamad-Nowsheri AIR. 1965 J & K 101 .......................... 24
47. Roy Export Company Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black Inc. v. Columbia
Broadcasting System Inc., 503 F. Supp. 1137 .................................................................... 25
48. Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House 1996 (38) DRJ 81 ..................................... 25
49. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................................... 22
50. S.K. Dutt v. Law Book Company AIR 1954 All 570 .......................................................... 26
51. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984) .................. 29
52. State of U.P v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 .................................................................... 33
53. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v. Positiv Television Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 45 PTC
70 .................................................................................................................................20, 22
54. The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendera Publishing
House and Ors. 2008(106) DRJ 482 ............................................................................. 19, 17
55. UMG Recording Inc v. MP3.Com Inc 54 USPQ 2d 1668 ..................................... 22, 23, 18
56. Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (1993) 1 SCC 645..... 24
57. University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari 2009 (39) PTC 642 ......................................... 21

TREATIES & INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994) Annex 1C of

the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in

Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April 1994 .............................................................................. 26

2. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), accepted in

Berne, Switzerland, on 09 September 1886 ................................................................. 26, 27

COMMENTARIES, DIGESTS & BOOKS

1. Prof. Michael Blakeney, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Concise

Guide to the TRIPS Agreement (Intellectual Property in Practice); Sweet & Maxwell

[1996]

Page - 8 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

2. Lionel Bently, Intellectual Property Law; OUP Oxford; Third edition [2008]

3. Prankrishna Pal, Intellectual Property Rights in India: General Issues and Implications;

Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd [2008]

4. E. T. Lokganathan, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs): TRIPS Agreement & Indian Laws;

New Century Publications; 1 edition [2012]

5. V.K. Ahuja, Intellectual Property Rights in India; Lexis Nexis India; First edition [2009]

6. Ananth Padmanabhan, Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Remedies; Lexis

Nexis India; 2012 edition [2012]

7. A. Subbian, Intellectual Property Rights: Heritage, Science and Society, Int. Treaties; Deep

& Deep Publications [2007]

8. V.K. Ahuja, Intellectual Property Rights in India; LexisNexis; Second edition [2015]

9. N.R. Subbaram, Demystifying Intellectual Property Rights; Lexis Nexis India; First edition

[2009]

10. Gillian Davies, Copyright Law for Writers; Editors and Publishers; A & C Black [2011]

11. Abidha Beegum V S, Indian Internet Copyright Law: With Special Reference to Author's

Right in the Digital World; Partridge India [2014]

12. Maurizio Borghi & Stavroula Karapapa, Copyright and Mass Digitization; OUP Oxford;

First edition [2013]

13. Simon Stokes, Digital Copyright: Law and Practice; Hart Publishing, Fourth edition [2014]

JOURNALS & REPORTS

1. William Patry (2011). Limitations and exceptions in the digital era, NLSIU Bangalore -

Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 7 Ind. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2011) ............................... 18

2. Raquel Xalabarder, Google Books and Fair Use: A Tale of Two Copyrights?, 5 (2014)

JIPITEC 53, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8 ................................. 25

Page - 9 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

3. Ujwala Uppaluri (2012). The libraries exception: what the amended Copyright Act does

(and should do) for preserving and sharing knowledge in the digital era, NUJS Kolkata -

The NUJS Law Review, 5(4) NUJS L. Rev. 665 (2012)..................................................... 33

4. Adrienne Muir, Copyright and Licensing Issues for Digital Preservation and Possible

Solutions, available at http://elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/0315.content.pdf (Last visited

on October 12, 2012) ......................................................................................................... 33

5. Pamela Samuelson, Copyright and Digital Libraries, available at

http://www.cparity.com/projects/AcmClassification/samples/205324.pdf (Last visited on

October 12, 2012). ............................................................................................................. 33

6. Cynthia Gillespie, Will Copyright Law Prevent a Digital Library from becoming reality?,

April 22, 2009, available at http://eresearchlibrary.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/will-

copyright- law-prevent-a-digital-library-from-becoming-reality/ (Last visited on October

12, 2012) ............................................................................................................................ 33

7. Sam Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright Related Rights

in the Digital Environment, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 9 th

Sess., Geneva, June 23 to June 27, 2003, SCCR/9/7 .......................................................... 28

LEXICONS

1. Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary, Ninth Edition

2. Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2009
3. P Ramanatha Aiyar's, The Law Lexicon, Third Edition, 2012

OTHER SOURCES

1. Dr. Ambedkar’s, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, p. 953 ..................................... 25

2. Hon. Pierre N. Leval, Towards a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1135 (1990) 20, 23

3. MELVILLE B. NIMMER AND DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, §

13.05[A] [3] at 13-178 (1997) ............................................................................................ 27

Page - 10 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF DRA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANTS IN THE

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ***/2019 FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF DRA, 1973.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

Page - 11 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Democratic Republic of Abhidweep (hereinafter referred as DRA) is having its

Constitution and laws are very similar to that of India, save and except the following:
 Article 21B of the Constitution: No person shall be deprived of his/her right to
access to information through electronic means except according to procedure
established by law.
 The Copyright Act, 1960 of DRA does not contain a provision similar to Section
57 of Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
2. The Government of DRA by a central legislation (Gyanvidya University Act, 1961), in
1961, established Gyanvidya University (hereinafter referred as GU), which is a legal
entity that may sue or be sued. GU houses the largest library in DRA having huge
repository of books, journals, periodicals, videos and audios in majority of which
copyright subsists. However, there are also books, journals, periodicals, videos and audios
that have fallen in public domain.
3. On May 3, 2014, the idea of establishing a public digital library was mooted in a
conference by GU’s VC which was supported by all. GoA decided to undertake PDLA
project and entrusted the responsibility of implementing the project to GU. The project
had following features:
 All books, journals, periodicals kept in the public funded universities and public
libraries of DRA will be digitized and further uploaded to a dedicated internal
server, which will be appropriately linked to the PDLA so that the materials could
be accessed through links available at PDLA website.
 PDLA website which will be harboured and maintained by the GU, will give
access to all digitized materials of GU’s own library and such materials will be
available in downloadable formats. PDLA website will also provide links to
digitized materials of all other public funded universities and public libraries and
following the link, a library user can download the materials.

Page - 12 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

4. By the end of December 2014, PDLA has become operational with access only to GU’s
library material as the other Universities and public libraries are yet to complete
digitization. For accessing PDLA, a user is required to sign up, register, create an account
by divulging his/her credentials, and agree with an end-user agreement – given in a click
wrap format.
5. Also PDLA website contain the following disclaimer: A user of this website shall
exercise due diligence to verify and ascertain which of the contents
 are proprietary and as such protected by copyright or
 have fallen in public domain, or
 are orphan works whose owners could not be traced, and GU shall have no duty or
obligation to provide the user with any information or advice in this regard.
As a user you understand, acknowledge, accept and agree that for providing this
PDLA Service, GU, either had taken third party content-owner’s permission or in
good faith believes that providing of such content to be fair use and fair dealing. As a
user you understand, acknowledge, accept and agree that GU is acting in the capacity
of a non-profit intermediary and at any point of time if any of the third party content-
owners raise objection about the use of their Content or GU, at its own, believes
providing of any such contents to be unlawful, GU may at its sole discretion forthwith
remove such contents.

6. After PDLA became operational Mr. Mathew Varghese, a renowned mathematician

found all his 20 books available for free download at PDLA. He was also informed that
the sale of his books has been drastically reduced in the quarter that ended on March 31,
2015. Mr. Varghese being a member took up the matter to Authors’ Association of
Abhidweep (hereafter AAA), which is a copyright society registered under the Copyright
Act, 1960 who works for the interest of the writers, to protect their livelihood and their
right to authorship , along with other authors who also complained to AAA.

Page - 13 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

8. AAA through an emergency General Body meeting discussed the problem of revenue-
loss to its members resulting from the free download feature provided by PDLA.
9. A group of authors under the leadership of Mr. Jyoti Tripathy, an eminent novelist and
Nobel Laureate, contended that AAA should support PDLA initiative and contended that
authors do have a duty towards the society and knowledge should be available free.
10. But AAA’s General Body passed a resolution authorizing AAA’s Secretary to initiate
appropriate legal action for infringement of copyright of its members as a result of which
Mr. Tripathy and 32 other members left membership of AAA, subsequently they
relinquished copyrights in all their works.
11. Subsequently, AAA sent a cease and desist notice to GoA, GU and Nirrikshan, alleging
copyright infringement which was responded by the GoA and GU stating that concerned
activities were fair dealing. However, Nirrikshan did not respond to the notice.
12. Aggrieved by GoA and GU’s fair dealing assertion and Nirrikshan’s silence, AAA, in a
representative capacity, filed a suit for injunction, damages and accounts (hereafter the
first suit) in the Original Side of the High Court at Shivpuri impleading GoA, GU and
Nirrikshan as defendants, which was ruled in favor of AAA.
13. Meanwhile, Nirrikshan launched an Internet search engine under the name and style of
FindIt whose key feature was to provide a book view service, which allowed user to read
online substantial part of books scanned by Nirrikshan from various libraries of the world
(including GU’s library) and uploaded into its server.
14. AAA being aggrieved and dissatisfied with outcome of both the appeals filed two
separate special leave petitions before the Supreme Court of DRA. The petitions were
admitted by the apex Court. The Apex Court clubbed these two special leave petitions.
15. The case has come up before the Apex Court for final hearing.

Page - 14 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following questions are presented before the Hon’ble Court in the instant matter:

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AT

SHIVPURI, ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE PDLA SERVICE, FINDIT
SERVICE AND THE CONNECTED ACTIVITIES MAKES FAIR USE OF THE
COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED WORKS?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE PDLA SERVICE, FINDIT SERVICE AND THE CONNECTED

ACTIVITIES ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
RELATED TO RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION?

Page - 15 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AT SHIVPURI,

ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE PDLA SERVICE, FINDIT SERVICE
AND THE CONNECTED ACTIVITIES MAKES FAIR USE OF THE
COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED WORKS.

It is humbly submitted that the learned Court below has erred in determining that the alleged
activities qualifies the reasonable ‘fair use’ analysis, as the alleged services has clearly violated
the Authors’ exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and display as defined u/s 14 (i), (ii),
(iii), (v) of the Copyright Protection Act, 1960.

2. THE PDLA SERVICE, FINDIT SERVICE AND THE CONNECTED ACTIVITIES

ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATED
TO RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION.

It is submitted that the alleged activities have violated the rights guaranteed to the persons and
the citizen under Article 21, 21 A, 21 B of the Constitution of DRA, 1960 and hence the said
activities are unconstitutional.

Page - 16 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT

AT SHIVPURI, ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE PDLA SERVICE,
FINDIT SERVICE AND THE CONNECTED ACTIVITIES MAKES FAIR
USE OF THE COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED WORKS?

‘Copyright is premised on the promotion of creativity through sufficient protection.’

1

It is humbly submitted that, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ex plained, the overriding
purpose of copyright is to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . .’ 2.
The Copyright Act confers upon authors certain enumerated exclusive rights over
their works during the term of the copyright, including the rights to reproduce the
copyrighted work and to distribute those copies to the public.

1.1 Purpose of the Copyright Law is to promote human knowledge.

As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service Co.3, the ‘primary objective of copyright is as set forth in the Constitution, is
to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’4

It is submitted that the purpose of copyright is central to the fair use inquiry. 5 The
ultimate test is whether the challenged use advances the human knowledge.6

Furthermore, it is beyond any reasonable doubts, that all copyright system allow
some unauthorised uses, but the important point is that the ‘limitations and
exceptions’ rhetoric attempts to restricts such uses to the minimum and to place a
heavy burden on the passage of new ones.7

1
Chancellors, Masters & Scholars of Oxford University v. Narendera Publishing House 2008 (106) D.R.J. 482
2
Campbell v. Acuff‐Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 574 (1994)
3
499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991)
4
United States Constitution; Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
5
M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. Anparasuraman, AIR 1960 Mad. 410
6
Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d at 251
7
William Patry (2011). Limitations and exceptions in the digital era, NLSIU Bangalore - Indian Journal of
Law and Technology, 7 Ind. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2011)

Page - 17 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

It is herein submitted that, the burden is always on others [non-owners] to explain

why the owner’s right should be limited, and in today’s political climate that burden
is heavy.8

1.2 The Mass Digitization Program Does Not Constitute Fair Use.

It is most humbly submitted that the alleged activities, ipso facto constitute copyright
infringement and as such does not amount to fair dealing.

Evidently, Nirrikshan has digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted works, and

has made such copies available for download in lieu of the PDLA project, and so
also has displayed substantial part of the in-copyright books to the public in lieu of
its FindIt services. It is undisputed that many of the books scanned by Nirrikshan,
were under copyright protection, and neither Nirrikshan nor did the impleaded
defendants obtained permission from the copyright holders for these usages of their
copyrighted works.

Thus, it is undisputed that the defendants has violated the Authors’ exclusive rights
of reproduction, distribution and display as defined u/s 14 (i), (ii), (iii), (v) of the
Copyright Protection Act, 1960.

It is submitted that ‘fair use’ doctrine has always precluded a use that supersedes the
use of original work, that is to say the use of original in-copyright work.9

It is furthermore submitted that the determination of ‘fair use’ is “an open-ended and
context sensitive inquiry”10, and thus the fair use doctrine calls for ‘case-by-case
analysis’.11 The ultimate test of fair use is whether the copyright’s goal of ‘promoting
the Progress of Science and useful Arts’ would be better served by allowing the use
than by preventing it.12

Pursuant to the fact of instant case it is submitted that the alleged use of copyrighted
work is clearly superseding, its very purpose & effect being to substitute electronic

8
ibid
9
Harper & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)
10
Blanch, 467 F.3d at 251
11
Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 553; Hubbard v. Vosper, (1972) 2 WLR 389
12
Castle Rock Entm’t , Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 1998)

Page - 18 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

copies and excerpts for the printed words of the copyright holder.13

1.3 Nirrikshan use of the copyrighted works is not “fair use” under the
copyright laws.

It is submitted that ‘fair use’ is an affirmative defense as to which, the alleged

infringer has the burden of proof.14 Furthermore, ‘fair use’ encompasses principles
and its goal is to ensure that creativity flourishes in the face of overly exuberant
exclusive rights.15 Importantly, ‘fair use’ must not be construed as a blank ticket for
all unauthorised uses.16

It is submitted that the nonexclusive analytical factors to be considered in the ‘fair

use’ determination17 are, first the purpose and character of the use,18 second the
nature of the copyrighted work,19 third the amount and substantiality of the portion
used20, and four the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.21

Evidently, the aforementioned factors are not a ‘scorecard’, but rather ‘direct courts to
examine the issue from every pertinent corner and to ask in each case 22 whether, and
how powerfully, a finding of fair use would serve or dis-serve the objectives of the

13
The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford Vs. Narendera Publishing House and Ors.
2008(106)DRJ482
14
Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590.
15
Patry 7 Ind. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2011)
16
Patry 7 Ind. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2011)
17
Fraser-Woodword Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corporation & Anr., (1964) 1 All.ER 465
18
Blackwood, AIR 1960 Mad. 410
19
R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films & Ors. 1978 (4) SCC 118
20
Chancellor, 2008 (38) PTC 385 Del
21
India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (53) PTC 586 (Del);
Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v. Positiv Television Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 45 PTC 70; ESPN Star Sports v.
Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors. 2008 (38) PTC 477 (Del); Hubbard & Anr. v. Vosper & Anr. (1972) 1
All.ER 1023; Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland (2000) R.P.C. 604; Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd.
(2002) R.P.C. 5; Associated Newspapers Group Plc v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. & Ors. (1986) R.P.C.
515; Fraser- Woodword Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corporation & Anr. (2005) EWHC 472; Ladbroke
(Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd. (1964) 1 All.ER 465; Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd. v.
Paramount Film Service Ltd. (1934) 1 Ch.593; Donald Irwin Robertson v. Batten, Barton, Durstine &
Osbrom Inc 146 F.Supp. 795; Baxter v. MCA Inc, PTC 385 (Del); Chancellor, 812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1987);
Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd. (1999) FSR 610; BDA Pvt. Ltd. v. Paul P.John & Anr.
2008 (37) PTC 569 (Del)
22
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 344 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)

Page - 19 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

copyright.’23

1.3.1 Purpose and Character of the Use.

It is submitted that the first analytical factor, the purpose and character of the use24,
is the heart of the fair use inquiry.25 Evidently while considering this factor, it must
be examined, whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original
creation or instead adds something new,26 with a further purpose or different
character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; to say it in
other words, whether and to what extent the new work is ‘transformative.27

It is submitted that alleged verbatim28 copying in the instant matter, is a

‘superseding’ or ‘supplanting’ use i.e., a verbatim substitution, which is not
entitled to ‘fair use’ protection.29

It is furthermore submitted that regards must also be given to the fact of nature of
use30 i.e., ‘whether the use is of a commercial nature’ or ‘whether it is for non-
profit educational purposes.’31

Moreover, to the extent that there is any transformative or other legitimate purpose
to the Libraries’ actions, the making of multiple copies of the works and then
storing the full text and image files online, where they are susceptible to theft and
widespread distribution goes far beyond what is needed to satisfy such purpose.

1.3.1.1 Alleged uses are not transformative.

It is submitted that the reproduction, distribution and display of millions of in-

copyright works do not constitute transformative uses.32 In Campbell33, the U.S.
Supreme Court stated that a use is transformative when it “adds something new,

23
Leval, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1110-1111 (1990)
24
M/s.Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. Anparasuraman AIR 1960 Mad. 410
25
Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d152, 174 (2d Cir. 2001)
26
Bill Graham Achieves, 448 F.3d at 605, 608
27
Campbell, 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)
28
‘word for word’, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)
29
R.G. Anand, AIR 1978 S.C. 1613
30
R.G.Anand, 1978 (4) SCC 118
31
University of Cambridge Vs. B.D. Bhandari 2009 (39) PTC 642; Super Cassettes Industries Vs. Hamar
Television Network 2011 (45) PTC 70 (Del) (Para 63)
32
Hanfstaengl v. W. H. Smith and Sons ([1905] 1 Ch. D. 519)
33
510 U.S. at 579 (1994)

Page - 20 - of 34
 - MOOT MEMORIAL, 2019-

with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new
expression, meaning, or message”.34

Evidently, the requirement that the use have ‘a further purpose or different
character” does not stand alone, but instead modifies the ultimate requirement that
the secondary use “adds something new.’35

As a result, merely articulating a new purpose for a use of a copyrighted work,

without changing or adding anything new, is not enough to render the work
transformative.36

In Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings Inc.,37 it was held that ─

The fact that defendant also offers a number of analysis tools does not render its
copying and redistribution of article excerpts transformative.

34
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada 19 (2004) 1 SCR 339 (Canada)
35
ibid
36
Cariou, 714 F.3d at 706
37
931 F. Supp. 2d 537, 557 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013)

Page - 21 - of 34