I.INTRODUCTION

The copyright is conferred so that some benefit can be conferred upon the person who has created the work in question. This benefit is granted in two forms:

(1) Firstly, in the form recognition of the fact that the work in question has been created by the person specified, and

(2) Secondly, by providing economic benefits to such person.

As far as the recognition aspect is concerned it is taken care of by confering "paternity and integrity rights" upon the person responsible for the work.

Similarly, the copyright holder can use her copyright for deriving monetary benefits out of it. She can grant a license for the coprighted work, sell it,etc and derive economic benefits out of the same (for more details please see the previous article).

II.THE DEBATE

Some people criticise this benefit conferment on the basis that no one should have a monopoly over the copyright. It belongs to the public at large and the public should not be divested from its use. Further, it is argued that by restricting its open use the development and civilisation process is reversed or at least put in a state of suspension. Their main argument is that the present society is the result of original creations without which we would not have been in a state of being civilised.

The other segment supporting the conferment of rights is of the view that without "incentives" the quality and qantity of the works will be deteriorated and reduced. The motivation for doing new and productive things will be eliminated and there will be no new work.Further, there is no sense in depriving the copyright holders of their rights when they have put their time, money and resources while generating the copyrighted work.

III.AUTHOR'S VIEWPOINT

The justification for confering monopoly rights in favour of the person responsible for the copyrighted work is very simple to understand. A person who has dedicated her time, energy and resources for the creation of the work deserves to be compensated suitably. That is why economic and moral rights are conferred upon such person. That does not mean that the "societal interest" has to be put at bay. A balance has to be maintained between the conflicting requirements of benefit conferment and societal interest. The copyright laws do not confer an indefinite monopoly rights upon the owner but they are restricted only upto a limited period. Further, if there is a case of "misuse" of the same the rights can be transferred in favour of others so that it can be exercised properly. This may take the form of compulsory licenses issued against the owner and other remedies (more details will be provided in the subsequent articles).

THUS THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN CONFERING ECONOMIC AND MORAL RIGHTS UPON THE OWNERS AS THE COPYRIGHT LAWS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS FOR THE MISUSE OF COPYRIGHT.


END OF PART-II

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.