Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd: Copyright Infringement & Standing to Sue
In Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed claims of copyright infringement. The plaintiff, Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd, sued Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd for primary infringement and authorization liability related to the uplinking of programs containing musical works. The court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, dismissed the primary infringement claim, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the defendant's actions did not constitute communication to the public under the Copyright Act. The court also struck out the claim for authorization liability. The judgment was delivered on 26 October 2021.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
HC dismisses claim for primary infringement of copyright under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court and strikes out claim for authorising primary infringement under O 18 r 19(1)(b).
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that uplinking signals in point-to-point transmissions is not a 'broadcast' and the plaintiff lacked standing to sue for copyright infringement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony, Darrell Low Kim Boon, Wang Liansheng, Chua Siew Ling Aileen |
| Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Kang Choon Hwee Alban, Oh Pin-Ping |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Darrell Low Kim Boon | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Wang Liansheng | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Chua Siew Ling Aileen | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Kang Choon Hwee Alban | Bird & Bird ATMD LLP |
| Oh Pin-Ping | Bird & Bird ATMD LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff is a collecting society administering rights for music and associated literary works.
- Defendant is a regional broadcasting company operating subscription pay television channels.
- Defendant uplinks encrypted channels to distributors located in Singapore and other countries.
- Plaintiff claims defendant infringed copyright by uplinking programs containing musical works.
- Distributors receive signals and transmit channels to their subscribers.
- Plaintiff claims to represent owners of musical works in the programs.
- The defendant’s satellite uplinking fell within the meaning of a point-to-point transmission.
5. Formal Citations
- Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 927 of 2020 (Summonses Nos 5628 and 5684 of 2020), [2021] SGHC 241
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant allegedly uplinking programmes by satellite transmission to third parties. | |
| HC/OS 660/2020 was heard and converted into the present suit. | |
| Defendant filed SUM 5628 to strike out the plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement. | |
| Plaintiff filed SUM 5684 for the determination of two questions of law. | |
| Plaintiff’s written submissions. | |
| Hearing for summonses. | |
| Defendant’s further submissions. | |
| Hearing. | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 2). | |
| Defence (Amendment No 2). | |
| Further and Better Particulars furnished by the plaintiff. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Standing to Sue
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was not the exclusive licensee of the right to communicate the Disputed Musical Works to the public or to perform these works in public. Thus, it lacked standing to bring the claims for primary infringement.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Exclusive right to authorise vs exclusive right to do an act
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant’s satellite uplinking fell within the meaning of a PTP transmission and did not constitute a broadcast or communication to the public under the Copyright Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Communication to the public
- Point-to-point transmissions
- Authorisation liability
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunctive Relief
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
- Authorisation Liability
10. Practice Areas
- Copyright Infringement
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Media
- Entertainment
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited regarding novel questions of considerable public importance are not suitable for summary determination. |
| Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl v An Sheng Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 99 | Singapore | Cited as a comparison for a question suitable for determination under O 14 r 12 of the ROC. |
| PCCW Media Ltd v M1 Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of copyright as a bundle of legally enforceable exclusive rights. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament shuns tautology and does not legislate in vain, and for the three-step approach to purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Ash v Hutchinson and Co (Publishers) Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | Ash v Hutchinson and Co (Publishers) Ltd [1936] Ch 489 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the owner of copyright has both the sole right of reproducing it and the sole right of authorising such reproduction, and that those rights are separate and distinct. |
| University of New South Wales v Moorhouse and Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1975) 133 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited to support the principle that infringement of the Underlying Right and Right of Authorisation are separate causes of action rooted in breaches of distinct exclusive rights. |
| WEA International Inc and another v Hanimex Corporation Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1987) 77 ALR 456 | Australia | Cited to set out the distinction between an Underlying Right and its corresponding Right of Authorisation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should have due regard to the context of text within the written law as a whole when determining the ordinary meaning of a word or provision. |
| Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1995) 31 IPR 289 | Australia | Cited for turning to the ordinary meaning of the word 'broadcast'. |
| RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 830 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that making a work available for access by any person from a place and at a time chosen by that person is a communication of the work to the public, and for the test for determining if a work has been communicated to the “public”. |
| SBS Belgium NV v SABAM | Court of Justice of the European Union | Yes | SBS Belgium NV v SABAM Case C-325/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:764 | European Union | Cited as authority for the requirement of substantiality and argues that the latter should be followed in Singapore, and for the principle that PTP transmissions sent to intermediate distributors, who later transmit the signals to their own subscribers, do not constitute a communication to the public. |
| Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1997) 146 ALR 649 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the “public” means the copyright owner’s public, and that if the copyright owner would expect to receive a fee from the persons to whom the defendant communicated the work, communication to the public has occurred. |
| TuneIn Inc v Warner Music UK Ltd and another company | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [2021] EWCA Civ 441 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the “public” means an indeterminate number of recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons. |
| Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL | Court of Justice of the European Union | Yes | Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL Case C-306/05, EU:C:2006:764 | European Union | Cited for the principle that the “public” means an indeterminate number of recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons. |
| ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TVCatchup Ltd | Court of Justice of the European Union | Yes | ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TVCatchup Ltd Case C-607/11, EU:C:2013:147 | European Union | Cited for the principle that the “public” means an indeterminate number of recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons. |
| Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) | Court of Justice of the European Union | Yes | Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) Case C-117/15, EU:C:2016:379 | European Union | Cited for the principle that the profit-making nature of the broadcast of a protective work “does not determine conclusively” whether a transmission is to be categorised as a communication to the public. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of an action being frivolous or vexatious. |
| The “Chem Orchid” and other appeals and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 50 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that summary determination under O 14 r 12 is suitable for points of law which can be determined on the basis of agreed or undisputed facts. |
| Tsai Jean v Har Mee Lee and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for a useful illustration to distinguish questions of law and fact. |
| Lance Court Furnishings Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Cited to underscore the impermissibility of giving a provision in the Copyright Act extraterritorial effect in the absence of express language. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would be adding to the language of a statutory provision to plug a perceived gap in the law, which is a legislative function. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court |
| O 18 rr 19(1)(b) of the ROC |
| O 18 rr 19(1)(d) of the ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 123 of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| s 26(1)(a) of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| s 7(1) of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| s 9(2) of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| s 25(1) of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| s 31(1) of the Copyright Act | Singapore |
| Copyright Act 1911 (c 46) (UK) | United Kingdom |
| Copyright Act 1987 (Act 2 of 1987) | Singapore |
| Copyright (Amendment) Act 2004 (Act 52 of 2004) | Singapore |
| Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) | Australia |
| Copyright Act 1956 (c 74) (UK) | United Kingdom |
| Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 (c 46) (UK) | United Kingdom |
| Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c 48) (UK) | United Kingdom |
| Broadcasting Act (Cap 28, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Copyright
- Infringement
- Exclusive Licensee
- Communication to the Public
- Point-to-Point Transmission
- Uplinking
- Broadcasting
- Authorisation Liability
- Collecting Society
- Distributors
- Encrypted Channels
15.2 Keywords
- Copyright Infringement
- Communication to the Public
- Point-to-Point Transmission
- Authorisation Liability
- Exclusive Licensee
- Singapore
- Intellectual Property
16. Subjects
- Copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Broadcasting
- Telecommunications
17. Areas of Law
- Copyright Law
- Intellectual Property Law