SSLA Assignments - Partners in Crime (Intellectual Property Rights)

Another subject that I'm learning at SSLA is IPR, Intellectual Property Rights, it's something that everyone in the world blatantly disregards. C'mon, really, don't deny the fact that your secretly listening to illegally downloaded music.

The first assignment that we got was on a movie called Partners in Crime which dealt with the rampant piracy that exists in India. The most recent examples from bollywood being Players and Jodi Breakers and the music from Agent Vinod.

Intellectual Property Rights – Assignment 1

Movie Review: Partners In Crime

Virpratap Vikram Singh

The documentary ‘Partners in Crime’ was a fairly detailed look at copyright in India, ranging from movies and music to topics like literature. While the film was very well executed, I personally believe that the makers have tried to cover too many aspects of copyright and in that process, lose the viewer from time to time.

The concept of Copyright in the film, at least the one that is depicted is one that shows how the common Indian is oblivious to the illegal nature of copyright violation. This was most clearly seen with Irrfan, who downloads movie after movie but then insisted that he wasn’t doing anything wrong and that he was against buying pirated movies. The same could be seen with the individual who sought to become a DJ, regardless of the fact that the music he was using was illegally downloaded.

Copyright, it seems comes across to the average man as a label pasted to protect someone’s creativity, or creative idea, it has no effect on them because creativity has never been something that has to be protected, but rather something to be shared. This is highlighted when the documentary shows ‘nautanki’ dance shows performing the creative inspiration to the popular ‘Munni badnam hui’. This is but one of the examples of how the meaning of copyright is lost to India.

However, there is a contrast when the documentary rises above the common Indian and instead looks at writers, musicians and theatre groups who seem to look at copyright as a tool for rich and western groups to crack down on the original authors and in some cases on creative adaptations of the work.

The most discussed topic in the documentary was the video piracy of movies and their distribution. The documentary was detailed enough to look at the various different angles from the clueless downloader, to the roadside vendor and even the representative of the MPA. However, one interesting perspective to get would have been the opinion of an Indian director who has a) been a victim of copyright violation, b) has violated a copyright, c) both.

This being said, the effect that filmmakers in India has been spoken about to an extent, like how filmmakers hire private security to conduct raids on piracy hubs and how slowly they are learning how to use copyright to protect themselves. What was by far the most interesting scene was the interview with the MPA representative when he was asked why the 6 biggest Hollywood studios would want to work with Indian filmmakers who violate their copyrights. While his response was that upon hearing of such violations, the MPA would look at the situation and take action, but the way it was said made it clear that they would never really do anything towards the Indian violators. Which begs the question of how can the MPA hope to stop copyright violation in any form if the production houses of India can get away with it?

Another interesting topic discussed in the documentary was the creative adaptation of tales of locals in the case of Vijaydan Detha. As he put it, “The original story is a seed from which the story grows”, this should be applicable even in the case of adaptations, if the end result is simply paying homage or taking some parts of it, then it shouldn’t be an infringement.

Some aspects of the film deserved more elaboration, specifically, the segment detailing how the sale of pirated goods is somehow funding terror activities. While it is a speculated theory, it has never been confirmed to have terror links. Aside from this and an interview with a few concerned citizens and a police inspector, there is nothing to confirm the links, which is one of the biggest shortcomings of this film. It opens the door to something so large and dangerous but can’t do more than that.

At the end of the documentary, I was honestly confused; the director has tried to address too many issues and has drifted from downloading movies, to selling movies, to the links between pirated movies and terror, then to music and ‘creative’ adaptations. The movie is all over the place. Making it harder to understand the key concepts and come up with a concise understanding of copyright. However, if I had to write what I understand about copyright it would be the selective protection of a creative concept/idea to make sure that the efforts undertaken by the ‘original’ authors are protected.

 While not my best answer, I was able to get my point across...