At last, SpicyIP gets to blog even about the Beijing Olympics where
It is rather (pleasantly) surprising to see a government organization enforcing its rights so aggressively. The news channels for their part can argue the fair dealing exception under Section 52(b) which allows for the use of copyrighted material “for the purpose of reporting current events”. However I doubt whether this provision will be interpreted to read as a blanket exemption and it is more likely that a court of law will read this exemption in light of DD’s own broadcast guidelines for news channels. It is most likely that the news channels will get away with breaching the guidelines, while broadcasting more than 10 seconds of the medal winning matches, by citing public interest, however, there will still be hell to pay for broadcasting the spectacular (partially doctored) opening ceremony which was one of the most viewed events in the world. The same stands true if any news channel was broadcasting entire events.
Its quite ironic that DD should be suing private broadcasters especially since the shoe has been on the other foot for the last 4 years. Back in 2004 Ten Sports which had exclusive broadcasting rights to some cricket matches refused to share its signal with DD, mainly because DD has an unencrypted signal which would overlap with neighbouring countries and the
cricket crazy people did not have access to Ten Sports. At the time the Supreme Court had also ordered DD to deposit about Rs. 50-100 crores with Ten Sports for sharing the signal. Such disputes became a regular feature in later years, the most recent one being the Nimbus-DD dispute in 2007. Considering the popularity of cricket in India DD always manages to force private parties into sharing their signal with them. Ultimately the Union Government passed the Sports Act 2007 (Mandatory sharing of signal) which compels private broadcasters to license their broadcast rights to DD in the case of a sporting event of national interest. At one point the royalty sharing agreement was 75:25 with the larger portion going to the private broadcaster. The logic behind such compulsory licensing is that DD is the most accessible network since it has an unencrypted signal and to deprive the people of

Hi, did you ever find the link to the Delhi High Court judgement regarding the Doordarshan case? – I would be interested to read it..
Thanks!