Recently, Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society have filed a copyright infringement suit in the Delhi High Court against two groups of websites going by the names ‘Sci-Hub’ and ‘Libgen’. The plaintiffs have sought for a permanent injunction against the websites and for issuing a dynamic injunction order so that the mirror links of these websites can be blocked as and when the plaintiffs notify. Additionally, the plaintiffs have sought an interim injunction against the defendants as well. In a hearing that took place on December 24, the court refused to grant a relief of removing the alleged infringing links from the defendant websites noting that there was no urgency as the alleged infringement had been going on since 2011. However, in light of the stand of Sci-Hub’s counsel, the court ordered that “no new articles or publications, in which the plaintiffs have copyright, will be uploaded or made available”. Libgen was unrepresented in this hearing. In this three-part post, I seek to dissect this litigation and the interpretive issues before the court. I shall also briefly touch upon the implications of this litigation on the education and research sector in India.
Parties
The three plaintiffs in this case are “top-tier, global publishing houses in the field of scientific and academic publications”. While all the plaintiffs have some portion of their publications available as open access, the predominant model for them is the subscription model where they earn revenue through subscriptions to their publications. Defendant No. 1, Alexandra Elbakyan, is a Kazakhstan based computer programmer and the owner of the group of websites popularly known as Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub’s stated aim is to “provide mass and public access to tens of millions of research papers” in order to remove “barriers in the way of science”, and contains a library of over 85 million papers. Defendant No. 2, on the other hand, is a group of websites known by the name Library Genesis or Libgen, whose owners are unknown. It claims to be a links aggregator to guide a user on where to find a given article/ book and has access to over 84 million journal articles and 2.8 million textbooks.
Charges
The plaintiffs claim that their publications fall within the ambit of literary works and that they hold exclusive rights to the same including the individual pieces published by them in light of their agreements with the original authors. Particularly, the plaintiffs invoke their exclusive rights as provided in Sections 14(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Copyright Act (the ‘Act’). These rights concern the reproduction of the work, issuing copies of the work to the public, and to communicate the concerned work to the public. They claim that the defendants by making the plaintiffs’ works available on their website without due permission are thus infringing these works by impairing their exercise of their exclusive rights. They specifically invoke liability under 51(a), 51(b)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Act. Section 51(a)(i) concerns committing of an act that is within the copyright owner’s exclusive domain. The other provisions, however, hinge on a profit or a trade motive on part of the infringer, or causing prejudice to the copyright owner. Additionally, the plaintiffs have invoked liability of the defendants under Sections 65A and 65B of the Act. These provisions concern circumvention of technological protection measures deployed by the copyright owner and the removal of rights management information from the work.
Rogue Websites and Dynamic Injunctions
The plaintiffs heavily rely on the decision in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.TO for seeking the defendant websites to be blocked and for a dynamic injunction to be issued against the same. In UTV, the Delhi High Court went into extensive detail on the issue of digital piracy and its impact on the movie industry. Pertinently, it delved into the question of when a website has to be blocked in its entirety as against a specific URL that contains the alleged infringing content. To this end, the court noted the significant impact that blocking of a website might have and hence the remedy has to be used with caution. Accordingly, the court only allowed it to be used against certain websites that it termed to be as ‘rogue’ websites.
The court listed out nine suggestive, non-exhaustive factors to categorise a website as ‘rogue’ in nature. These factors are: (i) primary purpose of the website being copyright infringement; (ii) flagrancy of the infringement; (iii) hidden or non-traceable details of the website registrant; (iv) ignorance of take down notices; (v) the presence of directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe; (vi) the general disregard to copyright by the owner; (vii) blocking of access to the website by other jurisdictions; (viii) presence of instructions on circumventing measures and court orders blocking access to the website; and (ix) the traffic on the websites. Per these factors, the website need not itself be carrying out the infringement, rather it also includes websites facilitating such infringement.
It would be interesting to see how the court tests the present case on these criteria. Some of the factors including blocking by other jurisdictions, the extent of traffic, non-traceability of website owners, presence of indexes and categories, and ignorance of take down notices prima facie weigh in against the defendants. Similarly the regular updates of mirror links to access the websites could be seen as instructions on circumventing court orders. As to the general disregard of copyright law, the same also weighs slightly against the defendants. However, other factors require strict analysis by the court during the trial to determine the nature of material available on these websites. As Prof. Scaria points out, a lot of material on these websites might actually not be hit by copyright law such as works in which copyright has expired or those where the right vests in the author in which the publishers do not have any claim to begin with. As the plaintiffs have only provided a short illustrative list, a clear conclusion on the primary purpose of the website or the flagrancy of infringement requires a more thorough treatment. It has to be considered that the court in UTV itself had stated that the classification of a website as ‘rogue’ was a qualitative endeavour that requires establishment that the given website is “overwhelmingly infringing”. A sample size of hundred or so articles might not be sufficient to establish infringement to this extent when the total scope of works runs over 84 million each.
Another allied issue that has to be addressed is that of granting a dynamic injunction as a remedy by the court. The court in UTV suggested it to be granted to stop what it termed as ‘hydra headed’ rogue websites that merely provide mirror links upon being blocked. In such circumstances, the court stated that the plaintiffs could implead the “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the event they merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that have been injuncted”. The power of supervision over the process was granted to the Joint Registrar, taking away the judicial oversight. This remedy becomes particularly problematic in the case at hand where there possibly exist a large number of non-infringing content on the concerned websites. If supposed the websites are blocked and they subsequently come up with an alphanumeric website hosting merely non-infringing content, the plaintiffs might even get them shut down given the broad leeway provided by a dynamic injunction, despite its emphasis on infringing works. Moreover, as we have discussed earlier on the blog, courts have not been particularly careful in structuring the dynamic injunction orders and have given broad-worded reliefs that can misused by the plaintiffs, thereby unreasonably constraining free speech. In this light, it is particularly important for the care to approach this plea with caution.
With this background on the arguments raised by the plaintiffs in this dispute, I shall highlight the applicability of a fair dealing defence in Part II of this post (here). Part III (here) would then deal with the exemption for education in the Act and the relief of interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs.