INTRODUCTION
Laws are considered living creature and it changes as per the needs of society. What if there are laws that are in contradiction to each other?
Which law will sustain and which will not?
Can one be neglected because of the nature that it is against the other?
There are also laws that have the same ends in it but unfortunately their means to attain that one goal differs.
This article is one such aspect where there the goals of the two laws are the same but the means are different.
This is an interesting aspect and this article will look into such instances in this paper.
It is important to note that competition law and Intellectual property law share the same goals between each other,
but the means to attain these goals are different.
As part of this article, and it is concerned, the author will be focusing on the Interface between Copyright law and competition law and how copyright societies functions.
It has been alleged that these copyright societies have acquired the statutes of Monopoly in the market.
The article will focus on one important and only case law that dealt with the interface between copyright law and competition law.
PURPOSE OF IP v. PURPOSE OF COMPETITION LAW
The purpose of Intellectual property saw is majorly to give an exclusive right to the creator or the author in cases of copyright law,
thereby leading such creators to enjoy the monopoly over the creation.
One example of such a statement is copyright licensing or the power of the creator to assign such work as part of commercial exploitation of his or her right.
On the other hand, the purpose of competition law is to break the monopoly and ensure that all people have the same means without anyone being dominant in the market.
This is because of the fact that a monopoly might go against the interests of the consumers.
Not to forget, competition law not only bases its objective to ensure competition or restrict the abuse of dominance but also to work for the benefit of the consumers as a whole who are the end parties to this aspect.
So, this is also a similar aspect when it comes to the IP and Competition law or Anti-trust laws.
SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF SEC 3(5) OF COMPETITION ACT
Let us have a look at section 3(5) of the competition act, 2002.
“Nothing contained in this section shall restrict the right of any person to restrain any infringement of, or to impose reasonable conditions, as may be necessary for protecting any of his rights which have been or may be conferred upon him under – copyright act, patent act, trademarks act, etc”
Section 3 of the competition act, 2002 deals with Anti-competitive agreements. An important provision that ensures that the IP Agreements or the Rights for that matter are not monopolies – has been prevented through a specific exception under Section – 3(5) of the competition act of 2002 which exempts the right of an author/patent holder shall never be considered to be violative of section – 3 of competition Act, 2002.
It brings all IP laws under its application.
SECTION 4 AND COPYRIGHT SOCIETIES
Let us take a look at section 4 of the competition act of 2002. Section 4 of the act deals with the aspect of the Abuse of a dominant position by an entity. Section 4 talks as follows:
- No enterprise or group shall abuse its dominant position.
- There shall be an abuse of dominant position under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a group directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatory—
- condition in the purchase or sale of goods or services; or
- price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service
Few of the sections of the copyright act, of 1957 evidently prove that copyright societies have acquired near or in other words, mostly monopoly – to issue licenses.
The Term “only” under Section – 33(1) proviso substantiates this statement.
In the case of copyright society, the relevant market should be the one that includes the “Management of copyrights” under the Act of 1957. IPRS, PPL, etc are examples of copyright societies and these entities charge excess license fees and provide blanket licenses. They also receive high royalties.
IN RE HT MEDIA LTD V SUPER CASSETTES LTD (2011):
The brief facts and decision of CCI are that – Informant media has alleged that the opposite party has control over 70% latest Bollywood music and charges an excessive royalty fee.
These royalty fees are that they have to provide to the copyright holder whenever they use the said product or the content in this matter.
This was alleged to be against section – 4 of the competition act, that is, it is an abuse of the dominant position.
The relevant market in this case – as identified by DG – was the sale of rights of Bollywood music to private FM radios in India.
DG’s investigation proved that there was an abuse of the dominant position.
CCI held that the dominant party/entity imposes any unreasonable and discriminated prices. – Then it will amount to an abuse of dominant position under section – 4(2) (a) (1) competition Act.
CONCLUSION
It is clear from the above facts and sections that unrestrained monopoly is subject to abuse even in Intellectual property matters and a bigger concentration of power may lead to the corrupt practices of their powers.
In the above case, we found that copyright rights, in spite of the statutory body in its essence, have been exercising their dominant position to result in the Adverse Effect on the Competition or which is said as AAEC.
It is important that these are stopped in an early stage or would cause damage and would result in the abuse of dominance by the entity, which affects us as a consumer.
The Competition Commission of India plays a major role in ensuring that there is no adverse effect on the consumers.
