WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en-IN

00:00:23.840 --> 00:00:32.160
a very warm welcome in module five of week 7
of the course intell ual property disputes code

00:00:32.160 --> 00:00:39.920
practices and enforcement now in this module we
are focusing on the different case laws related to

00:00:39.920 --> 00:00:45.440
copyright already we have a pretty well idea about
what is copyright infringement what are the rights

00:00:45.440 --> 00:00:51.920
of copyright owner and how exactly what are how
what are the different ways by which the copyright

00:00:51.920 --> 00:01:00.000
can be enforced now we will move into the landmark
cases which are related to the copyright now

00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:06.880
we can just check here this first case that is
related by the that Sony Corporation of America

00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:16.720
and Universal City Studio this was the case of
1984 1990s case okay what was the issue issue was

00:01:16.720 --> 00:01:24.520
whether manufacturers of Home Videos recording
devices could be held liable for a copyright

00:01:24.520 --> 00:01:31.880
infringement so we have seen in tradmark that
platform providers whether they are liable so here

00:01:31.880 --> 00:01:38.800
what is the issue like a that that video recording
devices producer whether they are like

00:01:38.800 --> 00:01:45.320
contributing to the copyright infringement whether
they are liable for the copyright infringement so

00:01:45.320 --> 00:01:52.080
let us see the this particular case little bit
in details now what happened this in 1970

00:01:52.080 --> 00:01:58.560
Sony developed betamax video tape recording
format that format was that betax this case is

00:01:58.560 --> 00:02:05.080
also known as a betamax case also so Sony have
developed that particular video tape formatting

00:02:05.080 --> 00:02:12.120
what happened Universal Studios and a wall Disney
they were among the entertainment companies who

00:02:12.120 --> 00:02:17.840
were aware about some developments related to
copyright are going going on that in US Congress

00:02:17.840 --> 00:02:25.400
that is in final stage revision of copyright but
they were like like they they were aware

00:02:25.400 --> 00:02:31.320
that yes the they will not take anything which
is a new protections for the film industry so

00:02:31.320 --> 00:02:36.600
that that that much awareness was there to this
production houses you can say Universal Studio and

00:02:36.600 --> 00:02:44.880
wall Disney now these companies therefore opted
for opted to sue Sony and its distributors in

00:02:44.880 --> 00:02:52.640
US district code for the that Central District
of a California that was in 1976 so that decision

00:02:52.640 --> 00:02:58.800
is taken by this Universal Studios and a Walt
Disney production now what was the contention

00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:04.600
that Sony was a man manufacturing a device that
could be used for a copyright infringement and

00:03:04.600 --> 00:03:10.560
therefore compan is liable for the infringement
because they are providing the devices for that so

00:03:10.560 --> 00:03:17.320
that is U that is the contention now complainant
that additionally they have included that there

00:03:17.320 --> 00:03:23.960
is a an unfair competition claim among the
that that was under the lanam act that but this

00:03:23.960 --> 00:03:31.280
was dismissed early only in this that course
and the outcome in this case we can say that

00:03:31.280 --> 00:03:37.760
individual copies of a complete television
shows that purposes of a Time shifting does

00:03:37.760 --> 00:03:46.120
not constitute a copyright infringement but can
instead be defended as a fair use so again I I

00:03:46.120 --> 00:03:52.640
just just give you the outcome of this
particular case that making of individual

00:03:52.640 --> 00:04:00.120
copies of complete television show there is not
a part also complete television show for purpose

00:04:00.120 --> 00:04:05.240
of time shifting so what is the meaning of time
shifting time shifting is a term which is used in

00:04:05.240 --> 00:04:12.000
broadcasting where the meaning is like that the
recording of a program on a storage medium to

00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:18.560
be viewed or listened after the live broadcasting
that is a Time shifting so decision the outcome

00:04:18.560 --> 00:04:26.680
of this case was making of individual copies of
a that complete television show for purpose of

00:04:26.680 --> 00:04:33.000
time shifting does not constitute any copyright
INF Arrangement but can instead be defended

00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:39.920
as a fair use so that was a outcome the court
also rulle that the manufacturers of home

00:04:39.920 --> 00:04:47.880
video recording devices such as betamax or VCRs
huh cannot be liable for that contributory

00:04:47.880 --> 00:04:54.600
infringement so that decision was given by the
court and obviously what it has establish that

00:04:54.600 --> 00:05:01.880
substantial non-infringing use doctrine that
was established sub stantial non-infringing use

00:05:01.880 --> 00:05:08.000
Doctrine and it also P you can say the development
of a personal Recording Technology it probably

00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:15.360
that Sony have been like U like there is no
question the deliber misss was there but if

00:05:15.360 --> 00:05:24.160
any company if like made responsible for or
contributory or the liability is like a proved in

00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:28.720
such cases probably that recording Technologies
may not have that the development may not

00:05:28.720 --> 00:05:34.440
have like like supported but because of this
decision obviously what happened the development

00:05:34.440 --> 00:05:39.480
of a personal recording technologies that
development that technology development is like

00:05:39.480 --> 00:05:46.880
a like started because it clearly said through
this particular case that the that creators

00:05:46.880 --> 00:05:53.600
are not liable for the copyright infringement so
that is the situation or that is this case and

00:05:53.600 --> 00:06:00.080
techn obviously that technology manufacturers
cannot be held liable for this particular like

00:06:00.080 --> 00:06:05.920
copyright infringement okay so that was the
that was this particular case let us move

00:06:05.920 --> 00:06:11.040
further the Napster case we have already discussed
this case but we will go a little bit details

00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:18.960
in this case that a and Records incorporate and
Napster this was this case in 2001 so Sony case

00:06:18.960 --> 00:06:25.680
is like a you can just check that Sony case was in
1980s 84 it is like a decision came now this case

00:06:25.680 --> 00:06:34.320
is of a yes after few years 20021 what was the
issue whether a peer-to-peer file sharing service

00:06:34.320 --> 00:06:41.280
could be held liable for a copyright infringement
okay so here the sharing is happening peer-to-peer

00:06:41.280 --> 00:06:47.760
sharing is happening whether they are liable for
a copyright infringement now what happened Napster

00:06:47.760 --> 00:06:55.040
has like founded in 199 and by 18year old Fanning
the founder was now Napster provided a platform

00:06:55.040 --> 00:07:02.840
for the users download compress digital music
files specifically MP3s from other users music

00:07:02.840 --> 00:07:12.040
library and they can do the like sharing
of that particular that MP3 files okay and

00:07:12.040 --> 00:07:19.160
here what is happening that namster is of use
compared to other peer-to-peer Services quickly

00:07:19.160 --> 00:07:25.560
made it popular service for music enthusiast
obviously it was hosted on Napster server

00:07:25.560 --> 00:07:32.400
and anybody can do search and they can download
that particular M3 that was the situation legaly

00:07:32.400 --> 00:07:37.840
record industry immediately look at took action
against it and believed that it is unauthorized

00:07:37.840 --> 00:07:43.880
copying of a copyrighted musical work in this
Napster surface okay the first suit was filed

00:07:43.880 --> 00:07:50.120
at US District Court for the Northern District
of California record companies AER that it is

00:07:50.120 --> 00:07:55.320
a contributory and vicarious liability on
Napster and they have filed a motion for

00:07:55.320 --> 00:08:02.720
a plinary injunction okay immediate injunction
for this particular activity obviously code

00:08:02.720 --> 00:08:09.440
that given the injunction order and so that
now nobody is able to now do peer to peer sharing

00:08:09.440 --> 00:08:16.400
until that case is going on at least okay what
happened further now further what happened that

00:08:16.400 --> 00:08:23.560
that this is like the transmitting uploading
or Distributing of a copyrighted material is

00:08:23.560 --> 00:08:30.800
facilitated through this snapster service that was
the situation and obviously the the that music

00:08:30.800 --> 00:08:36.960
companies are having that they have filed the case
against Napster now appeal was gone further in the

00:08:36.960 --> 00:08:43.440
n9th circuit order and they again stayed
the district court decision that injunction and

00:08:43.440 --> 00:08:50.160
allowed Napster to continue they have like a
order of stay of the district code injunction and

00:08:50.160 --> 00:08:55.720
allow Napster to continue its operation so later
on the matter direct copyright infringement the

00:08:55.720 --> 00:09:01.360
Circuit Court agreed with the District Court's
determination that Napster users were likely

00:09:01.360 --> 00:09:09.400
engaging the direct enragement so that was a that
was a like decision and the code considered

00:09:09.400 --> 00:09:15.200
four factors which are required for a fair use
so what are these four factors first thing is

00:09:15.200 --> 00:09:23.400
like a downloading an MP3 is not a transformative
and even though Napster did not directly benefit

00:09:23.400 --> 00:09:29.360
financially there's no any benefit to Napster
for that direct benefit from users download

00:09:30.160 --> 00:09:37.000
repeated and exploitative copying of a copyrighted
works even if the copies are not offered for sale

00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:43.640
could be considered a commercial use just
see the the rewriting of the definition of

00:09:43.640 --> 00:09:51.120
a commercial use that is a exploitative copying
of a copyrighted work huh so that requires

00:09:51.120 --> 00:09:57.560
authorization that was the first second creative
works such as the songs which are in question

00:09:57.560 --> 00:10:05.560
are closer to the core of for intended copyright
protection so it is flavoring the plenti third one

00:10:05.560 --> 00:10:11.320
is like in some cases wholesale copying of a work
may be allowable with a Time shifting that was the

00:10:11.320 --> 00:10:20.640
Sunni case we have seen that so in some cases
then fourth widespread wholesale transfer of a

00:10:20.640 --> 00:10:28.080
pentips music negatively affected the market for a
CD cells obviously and they they like threaten the

00:10:28.080 --> 00:10:35.560
recording industry also okay so that was the
that was the situation now Circuit Court rejected

00:10:35.560 --> 00:10:43.360
Napa argument and that that a file sharing
by its users qualified for a fair use defense

00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:50.360
so the defense which is used by Napster is not
accepted and N Circuit Court of Appeals upheld

00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:58.080
that Napster was liable for a contributory and
vicarious infringement so in Sony case it was held

00:10:58.080 --> 00:11:04.360
that no that device producers are not responsible
for any copyright infringement in Napster C where

00:11:04.360 --> 00:11:11.000
the Napster case there was a sharing happening
and here it was like a held that Napster is a

00:11:11.000 --> 00:11:17.240
contributory and vicarious copyright infringement
liable for that both okay so it set a precedence

00:11:17.240 --> 00:11:22.680
for holding online services responsible for
a users copyright infringement obviously it

00:11:22.680 --> 00:11:30.240
influenced the development of a legal digital m
music services so that was the that was the

00:11:30.240 --> 00:11:38.600
effect okay so these two Sony Napster now we
will go another giant MGM Studios okay

00:11:38.600 --> 00:11:45.640
roaring lion just just I I will just give you
in few minutes the how their trademark also like

00:11:45.640 --> 00:11:52.360
transformed or they have changed it so that
you can just see its trademark side also and this

00:11:52.360 --> 00:12:01.840
particular case of MGM Studios versus a groer
now what this case is again in linkage only so

00:12:01.840 --> 00:12:08.520
Sony device is there in Napster sharing service
is there what was here in this case whether

00:12:08.520 --> 00:12:14.960
Distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing software
would be held liable for a copyright infringement

00:12:14.960 --> 00:12:22.600
that was the question under consideration whether
Distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing software

00:12:22.600 --> 00:12:30.120
so obviously this groer it is a privately
owned software company now it was was in like it

00:12:30.120 --> 00:12:36.640
is a West Indies based company and it is like
responsible what was the product peer-to-peer file

00:12:36.640 --> 00:12:44.880
sharing like the the software okay and it was
like like very fast transfer is there okay so as

00:12:44.880 --> 00:12:53.480
we have seen that Sony case 1980s case Napster
case was 2001 and this case is a 2005 case US

00:12:53.480 --> 00:12:59.320
District Court for Central District California
originally dismissed the case in 2003 citing

00:12:59.320 --> 00:13:06.840
Sony is precedent device is allowed right
they are not liable for copyright infringement

00:13:06.840 --> 00:13:15.600
so considering that this case was a dismissed
appeal in n n Circuit Court huh so it again upheld

00:13:15.600 --> 00:13:20.840
The District Court's decision after acknowledging
that peer-to-peer software has a legitimate and a

00:13:20.840 --> 00:13:29.280
legal usage now in this case that Amicus cury
that that that considering that particular

00:13:29.280 --> 00:13:35.320
we can say the aspect of a law many other parties
involved okay so amus cury is like a friend of a

00:13:35.320 --> 00:13:41.200
code in short the if you see what it is that
individuals or organizations which are not

00:13:41.200 --> 00:13:47.800
party for that legal case but they can they
are permitted to assess the court so here in

00:13:47.800 --> 00:13:54.360
this case you can just check here so here you
can just check that that that few parties

00:13:54.360 --> 00:14:02.800
which are there you can just check here that
Intel and yo they were with a a grer now what they

00:14:02.800 --> 00:14:08.720
have they have said that when we are talking
about this particular case what they have

00:14:08.720 --> 00:14:15.720
said Intel and Yahoo that computer and internet
technology companies huh they says obviously

00:14:15.720 --> 00:14:21.440
that Intel and Yahoo and all they says that
they have they have they have in support that

00:14:21.440 --> 00:14:29.720
file sharing companies that is this glocker
but this two two like a recording industry

00:14:29.720 --> 00:14:37.440
Association of America that is Raa and this Motion
Picture Association of America that is MPAA you

00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:46.480
can just check here they were in favor of MGM and
other entertainment companies and Napster also was

00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:55.240
given the that the the Napster was also there and
what was the statement given is like having

00:14:55.240 --> 00:15:02.560
obviously the case we have seen that enabling
of users copyright infringement filed a brief

00:15:02.560 --> 00:15:10.920
in support of entertainment companies so again
Napster was in favor of a MGM again Mark Kuban

00:15:10.920 --> 00:15:18.000
Mark Kuban is a he was also he supported rockster
for a legal battle so you probably have seen

00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:27.160
in Shark Tank that that that serial actually
so he's a American businessman investor and he

00:15:27.160 --> 00:15:33.520
was in that shark t probably you have seen the
episodes of That So he was also there to support

00:15:33.520 --> 00:15:44.480
the this groer okay so this we can say
that there was a broad we can say the this case

00:15:44.480 --> 00:15:50.920
was like attracted many parties and they have
like given their their opinions regarding this

00:15:50.920 --> 00:15:58.160
particular situation what was outcome outcome was
that US Supreme Court ruled that companies can be

00:15:58.160 --> 00:16:06.480
held liable for a inducing copyright infringement
so here this software is help for the sharing

00:16:06.480 --> 00:16:14.560
right so what the statement is companies can be
held liable for inducing copyright infringement

00:16:14.560 --> 00:16:22.440
and groer obviously what happened the decision was
again against groer and what was a statement

00:16:22.440 --> 00:16:30.360
used we hold that the one who distributes a device
with the object of promoting its used to infringe

00:16:30.360 --> 00:16:39.000
copyright at shown by a clear expression or other
affirmative steps taken to Foster infringement is

00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:47.560
liable for the resulting acts of a infringement by
a third parties so that was the statement which is

00:16:47.560 --> 00:16:55.120
used while giving the decision on this particular
case case was decided in favor of MGM obviously

00:16:55.120 --> 00:17:02.000
it was a big fight like lower courts are in favor
of groer considering the Sony case which is very

00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:09.200
strong case giving the that decision that
no that device devices device producing entity

00:17:09.200 --> 00:17:15.200
is not responsible but in Napster that sharing
is like restricted Napster it was not in favor

00:17:15.200 --> 00:17:24.120
of Napster in mg MGM case now you can just check
here that grer also forced to pay $50 million

00:17:24.120 --> 00:17:32.000
to various companies for this particular that
infring so that was the situation so you can say

00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:39.280
that there was a establishment that inducement
theory of a secondary liability that was we can

00:17:39.280 --> 00:17:44.760
say established in this case and it has impacted
the development and distribution of a fight

00:17:44.760 --> 00:17:51.840
sharing Technologies definitely nobody will work
in this particular technology further because this

00:17:51.840 --> 00:18:00.040
is a like contribu contributory infringement
liabilities with that particular organization or

00:18:00.040 --> 00:18:07.640
a entity okay so that is the situation so MGM
probably you are aware about as it's a very

00:18:07.640 --> 00:18:14.000
popular we can say the production house or studio
so just check this video probably you will enjoy

00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:28.760
that little relax mode that three important
landmar cases we have seen just watch this video

00:18:46.440 --> 00:18:47.440
[Music]

00:18:47.440 --> 00:18:52.400
okay now let us move and author Guild and Google
case probably you are aware about so we will not

00:18:52.400 --> 00:18:57.840
go but we will go into the details of a Google
and Oracle actually now this author Guild and

00:18:57.840 --> 00:19:03.200
Google K just G I will give you the glimpse of
glimpses of that it was a Google was Google

00:19:03.200 --> 00:19:09.360
started the SC scanning of a millions of book
for holding it on the Google website Google

00:19:09.360 --> 00:19:15.640
site actually I should not say website Google
site okay so that was like that that was

00:19:15.640 --> 00:19:21.960
this case and obviously it was in favor
of author's guilt this decision was given it

00:19:21.960 --> 00:19:28.040
was 2015 case probably we have discussed this case
earlier also but you can just this is important we

00:19:28.040 --> 00:19:34.760
can say the copy copyright one of the important
copyright the decision taken in that case

00:19:34.760 --> 00:19:43.200
that fair use understanding we can say the
expanded in digital age and obviously it there was

00:19:43.200 --> 00:19:50.680
it is influen development of a mass digitization
projects okay so that way it is important Google

00:19:50.680 --> 00:19:58.640
Oracle again it was a like a big we can say
the fight it was that Oracle America and Google

00:19:59.240 --> 00:20:06.680
issue under consideration was whether Google's
use of java Java apis in the Android operating

00:20:06.680 --> 00:20:15.200
system was fair use H so question was whether
that Java api's usage in Android operating

00:20:15.200 --> 00:20:20.560
system was a fair use or or not that was the
question under consideration that was the issue

00:20:20.560 --> 00:20:27.960
the decision was like US Supreme Court ruled that
Google's use of the Java apis was a fair use so

00:20:27.960 --> 00:20:34.680
this was the Deion and then the obviously you
if you go into the details of this case Sun micro

00:20:34.680 --> 00:20:41.640
system is there then Oracle is there so you you
can just go into the the details of this course

00:20:41.640 --> 00:20:47.640
it is a long we can say the proceedings the the
the that there are events in this particular case

00:20:47.640 --> 00:20:54.840
and the significance of this case is that
it clarified the application of fair use to

00:20:54.840 --> 00:21:01.120
software interfaces obviously impacted software
development practice IES and interoperability

00:21:01.120 --> 00:21:08.120
because of this particular decision but yes
decision was like a Google's use is a fair use

00:21:08.120 --> 00:21:14.520
okay so that was the that was the decision now
there are few more cases like Capital Records

00:21:14.520 --> 00:21:21.960
and then the ra rigi incorporate so here
in this case the issue was whether resell of

00:21:21.960 --> 00:21:28.520
digital music files was protected by the first
cell doctory that was the again the issue

00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:35.920
resell of a digital music files resell of a
digital music cell was a protected by the first

00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:41.840
cell Doctrine so that was the question so whether
that the decision of second Circuit Court in

00:21:41.840 --> 00:21:48.520
this case was that the resell of a digital files
involved creating a new copies which infringed the

00:21:48.520 --> 00:21:54.720
copyright okay so that there is an infringement
of a copyright so limited the application of first

00:21:54.720 --> 00:22:00.640
cell Doctrine okay we talk about exhaustion of
Rights and all but yeah this case is again you can

00:22:00.640 --> 00:22:06.920
say the important case so limited the application
of first cell Doctrine in digital context and also

00:22:06.920 --> 00:22:13.560
impacted the development of a secondary markets
for a digital good so this is a Again The Landmark

00:22:13.560 --> 00:22:20.520
is considering digital media and copyright
now the next you can just check here this is

00:22:20.520 --> 00:22:28.680
a Bridgeport music and a dimension films case
it is in 2005 issue whether the use of a small

00:22:28.680 --> 00:22:34.640
sample from a sound recording required a license
this is very important case because in India also

00:22:34.640 --> 00:22:42.240
some similar cases in this context happened
case was whether the small sample from a sound

00:22:42.240 --> 00:22:49.800
recording require a license that authorization
you for authorization that that usage without

00:22:49.800 --> 00:22:55.800
infringement whether you have to take a permission
license from the authorized user the decision

00:22:55.800 --> 00:23:02.720
given in this case is that six circuit code g the
decision and it ruled that any sampling of sound

00:23:02.720 --> 00:23:10.320
recording see the wording any sampling of a sound
recording no matter how brief requires a license

00:23:10.320 --> 00:23:17.360
now I will just suggest you in this context check
the Ramat case and a Rakesh Roshan case Okay so

00:23:17.360 --> 00:23:25.120
this is a decision in a six circuit code given
and this case was like a 2005 and this is like a

00:23:25.120 --> 00:23:32.440
precedent set for a a small and therefore in nptl
so you you probably just now I'm just we are

00:23:32.440 --> 00:23:39.200
discussing this so as this is the decision
given in the code right so any copyrighted

00:23:39.200 --> 00:23:46.160
material if we are using obviously we have to
take a small part also and therefore we can

00:23:46.160 --> 00:23:54.000
say that when when here also whenever we are
sharing with you the links or some small videos

00:23:54.000 --> 00:24:00.720
we are taking caution right because small part is
also responsible for the copyright infringement

00:24:00.720 --> 00:24:06.480
obviously this is a fair use section 52 we are in
coming under that particular perview but still we

00:24:06.480 --> 00:24:11.600
have to take a caution okay and here though it's
like a if you are doing commercial use though you

00:24:11.600 --> 00:24:18.320
have to be very very careful about this particular
thing okay so this is this is very important okay

00:24:18.320 --> 00:24:24.120
then there are few more cases if you want to
go into the details you can go like Caro versus

00:24:24.120 --> 00:24:32.480
Prince cases there okay so then Georgia versus
public resource organization that case is there so

00:24:32.480 --> 00:24:39.160
you can just go into that particular cases but we
can just see now the key takeaways after going

00:24:39.160 --> 00:24:47.200
through this particular Napster Sony very landmark
cases these are right G GST so these are the cases

00:24:47.200 --> 00:24:55.200
and then the author Guild Google Oracle Google
okay so if you see we can say that technology is

00:24:55.200 --> 00:25:02.000
impacting definitely so all these cases if you
see many Landmark asses invol new technologies

00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:06.800
which are challenging the existing copyright
framework so that is one important thing probably

00:25:06.800 --> 00:25:12.040
you will agree with that fair use Evolution
the interpretation of fair use continues to

00:25:12.040 --> 00:25:18.840
evolve particularly in digital context secondary
liability that concept huh Court have grabed with

00:25:18.840 --> 00:25:25.320
that defining the limits of a secondary liability
for Co copyright infringement then digital

00:25:25.320 --> 00:25:33.200
challenges that is a transition of a digital media
has raised new questions obviously and probably

00:25:33.200 --> 00:25:39.440
that that that traditional doctrines will
be challenged because of that and then obviously

00:25:39.440 --> 00:25:43.680
balancing rights is a very important whenever
court is taking decision you have probably

00:25:43.680 --> 00:25:50.200
observed in all the cases that yes court is like
trying to balance the interest of both Creator and

00:25:50.200 --> 00:25:57.280
then the consumer okay so we can say that
these cases demonstrate we can say the complex and

00:25:57.280 --> 00:26:03.960
evolving nature of opy definitely these are the
landmark cases and few cases will come definitely

00:26:03.960 --> 00:26:10.920
and they will challenge as technology will grow
some new cases will come obviously the law will

00:26:10.920 --> 00:26:17.160
like there will be amendments there will be like
development further Evolution further okay so that

00:26:17.160 --> 00:26:23.600
is going to happen as technology grows so we have
already discussed emerging Technologies issues

00:26:23.600 --> 00:26:29.760
in week four and we have talked about Ai and all
okay so that we are we are going to we are these

00:26:29.760 --> 00:26:35.920
challenges are obviously we have to face okay so
with this we are coming towards the end of this

00:26:35.920 --> 00:26:45.400
session and maybe you can just just try to find
out if any of the case which you have like came

00:26:45.400 --> 00:26:51.560
across related to copyright infringement so if
you want to share please share in the comment box

00:26:51.560 --> 00:26:58.400
below you can share that particular case
okay and with this we are coming to the end

00:26:58.400 --> 00:27:05.520
of the session that is a copyright related
issues also we have we have gone into the

00:27:05.520 --> 00:27:13.800
details so with this we are completing this week
seven also see you in the next session thank you