COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT: EVALUATING THE HARDSHIPS CAUSED BY 'ANTON PILLER' AND 'JOHN DOE’ ORDERS IN INDIA

Abstract

Recently, Anton Piller and John Doe orders are coming forward as primary tools to fight Copyright infringement in India as most of such cases do not see the light of trial and are either settled outside the court before the conclusion of the trial or withdrawn. Historically, they are judicially evolved remedies and Indian judiciary has found its authority to issue such orders in Copyright infringement cases either by using provisions written in wide capacious language in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or by using inherent powers of the court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Due to this they lack safeguards or restrictions, giving courts a lot of discretion to play around with. The result of this is that exploitative characteristics have crept into these orders that are causing injustice to a lot of people. The objective of the note is to point out these characteristics and resulting hardships caused by these characteristics. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights aspires that there should be a balance between Copyright protection and accessibility of cultural goods to the public. Such orders should aspire to achieve this objective as well but they are tilting the balance too much in favour of Copyright owners. The mains suggestions are as follows: the need for uniform practice imbued with safeguards, courts must remember the origins and objectives of the order ensuring that order doesn't tilt the balance too much in favour of plaintiff, there must be a balance between freedom of speech and expression and Copyright protection, one must realize that law will always lag behind technology so better technological measure rather than court orders would be a better solution to deal with infringements, whole websites shouldn't be  blocked and newer solution such as better business models for movie industry should be adopted.