|
| Dear
Anon.
Coward,
|
|
 |
|
 |
Dear Anon. Coward, In cases of copyright inefrngemint, from what little I know, once inefrngemint is proved damages are calculated on the basis of the profits made by the infringer as also on the basis of the actual licensing rates of the owners - In such a case would you not agree that 'cost' = 'lack of gain'? On the point of the 'periodical' - I would argue that the provision needs to be read in context of the era that it was enacted in. The internet did not exist when S. 52(1)(m) was enacted and therefore it is safe to presume that the legislature meant this provision to apply only to paper publications especially since the internet as a mode of media represents a sea-change when compared to the print media and as such the internet throws up several more policy questions which can be answered only by the legislature and not by an activist judiciary. The difference between the print media and the web media are simply too many for them to fall within the same genus. Moreover I think exceptions should be read narrowly in the sense that over-expansive interpretations should not be given. However that is just my opinion and I'm sure you'll dis-agree with it. :-) In case you're replying to this I'll be taking some to reply to your comment - so please pardon the future delay.Thanks,Prashant
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
RachelCompCommunity
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 08:44:23
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
112.1.173.186
|
|
|
|
