Pranesh,I wouldn’t relaly equate “reasonable grounds for believing” with conspiracy and abetment, as these concepts are qualitatively different in tenor and ambit. But perhaps we’ll agree to disagree on that count.In any case, section 51 only applies in the context of “communication to the public”. You will appreciate that some intermediary activities implicate other exclusive rights under the copyright act (reproduction in the context of temporary/cached copies). In all such cases, section 79 may have come to the rescue, had it included “copyrights”. And to this extent, it is wider in scope than what sections 63 and 51 provide.Secondly, you state:”I think the wording “from exercising any right conferred” is very important. This applies to fair dealing rights (for I would argue that because of their wording they are liberty rights (in the Hohfeldian framework), and not merely statutory defences) along with the rights conferred through s.14.”I’m not sure I follow you. How exactly will section 81 save the exercise of a fair use provision? I’m hard pressed to think of any circumstance where a fair use provision could not have been resorted to, but for section 81.And lastly, i took a look at the initial IT Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2006. It has the same provision as what we find today. And even has a bizarre explanatory section that is not very clear. In any case, I’m curious to see the JPC you mention. Can you please email this to me? Thanks.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.