We are anonymous, we are legion

Do IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet

praskrishna — 2012-05-31T09:00:41Z

Pranesh Prakash along with Dr. Arvind Gupta, National Convener, BJP IT Cell and Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC participated in a panel discussion on censorship of the Internet on May 8, 2012.

The discussion was broadcast on Yuva iTV. See the video below:

Video

Click for the video on YouTube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/do-it-rules-indirectly-lead-to-censorship-of-internet

Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

praskrishna — 2012-05-31T07:14:42Z

This event was organised by Digital Empowerment Foundation, National Internet Exchange of India and Association for Progressive Communications at Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated as a speaker in the session on Access to Internet: Right to Information.

9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. (Registration)

9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics

Introduction: Osama Manzar, Founder & Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation
Chair: Aruna Roy, Head, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) & Member, National Advisory Council (NAC), Govt. of India
Co-Chair: Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DIT, Govt. of India
Plenary Speakers:

Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Venkatesh Nayak, Co-convener, Secretary, National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information
Jitendra Kohli, Executive Member, Transparency International India Summary of the Session by the Chair

11.00 to 11.15 a.m. (Tea break)

11.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.

Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information

Chairperson: Basheerhamad Shadrach, Development Consultant
Plenary Speakers:

Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet & Society
NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law
Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Varsha Iyenger, Member, Centre for Law and Policy Research
Amitabh Singhal, Former CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)
Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Founding Member, Association for Democratic Reforms

12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
Working Session II - Internet Right as Human Right: Need for a Holistic Framework towards Universal Access in India

Chairperson: Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), Govt. of India
Co-chair & Moderator: R. Sukumar , Managing Editor, Live Mint Newspaper
Panel Members:

Subho Ray, President, Internet & Mobile Association of India (IMAI)
Deepak Maheshwari, Vice President - Public Policy, South Asia, MasterCard
Ravina Agarwal, Program Officer, Ford Foundation
Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights
Anoop Saha, Co-Founder, CGNet Swara
Shivam Vij, Writer, Kafila.org

Click to see the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation

Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-06-15T04:10:57Z

Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, and Society in Action Group is organizing a discussion on E-Governance. It is based on the theme, ‘Security and Privacy Issues’, and will be held in Ahmedabad, Gujarat on June 16, 2012, from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Registration is free and open to the public.

India has witnessed a rapid proliferation of the use of information and communication technology in the delivery of government services. E-government is seen as an instrument to simultaneously increase the efficiency, transparency and accountability of public administration and improve public service delivery. Consequently, this has transformed the traditional delivery of public sector services, this is known as “e-governance”. These developments have implications and pose challenges for privacy and security.

The right to privacy in India has been a neglected area of study and engagement. Although sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, India does not as yet have a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. The absence of a minimum guarantee of privacy is felt most heavily by marginalized communities, including HIV patients, children, women, sexuality minorities, prisoners, etc. — people who most need to know that sensitive information is protected.

Since June 2010, Privacy India in collaboration with Privacy International, based in London, has been engaging in public awareness through workshops and consultations. These provide a platform for policy makers, sectoral experts, NGOs, and the public to discuss and deliberate different questions of privacy, its intersections and its implications with our everyday life. The discussions have ranged from topics of identity and privacy, to minority rights and privacy, and consumer privacy. The workshops have been organized in different cities — Bangalore, Guwahati, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Goa, etc.

Agenda

9.00 - 9.30	Registration
9.30 - 10.00	Welcome Prashant Iyengar is a practicing lawyer and lead researcher for Privacy India. He will present who Privacy India is, and the objectives of Privacy India's research. His presentation will focus on discussing privacy in India.
10.00 - 10.15	Tea Break
10.15 - 10.45	Session I People as the Most Vulnerable Link in e-Governance Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Professor and Chairperson in the information Management Area at Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
10.45 - 11.15	Ongoing e-Governance projects: Issue with security and privacy Professor Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor - Center for Electronic Governance, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
11.15 - 11.25	Discussion
11.25 - 11.55	E-governance: What is it? Mr. Gopalkrishnan Devanathan (Kris Dev), Co-founder of the International Transparency and Accountability Network.
11.55 - 12.25	Security and privacy in e-governance with reference to the Gujarat Government Dr. Neeta Shah, Director (eGovernance), Gujarat Informatics, Ltd.
12.25 - 12.35	Discussion
12.35 - 1.20	Lunch Break
1.20 - 1.50	Session II Cyber Usages: Challenges and Dispute Resolution Utkarsh Jani, Advocate, Jani Advocates
1.50 - 2.20	Concern for privacy and security of the common man Dr. Mrinalini Shah, Professor of Operations Management at Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad
2.20 - 2.50	Security issues in e-Governance: A hacker's perspective Mr. Sunny Vaghela, Founder & CTO, TechDefence Private Limited
2.50 - 3.00	Discussion
3.00 - 3.30	Session III Securing the desktop through Virtualisation Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager East, CG & MP at NComputing Inc
3.30 - 4.00	Opening up Data and privacy Ms. Nisha Thompson, Data Project Manager at Arghyam/India Water Portal
4.00 - 4.10	Discussion
4.10 - 4.25	Tea Break
4.25 - 5.00	Discussion and Questions

Confirmed Speakers

Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Professor and Chairperson in the Information Management Area at Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Utkarsh Jani, Advocate, Jani Advocates
Gopalakrishnan Devanathan (Kris Dev), Co-Founder of the International Transparency and Accountability Network
Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor- CEG- IIMA
Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager- East, CG & MP @ NComputing India
Nisha Thompson, Consultant, India Water Portal
Dr. Mrinalini Shah, Professor, NMIMS University, Mumbai
Sunny Vaghela, Founder & CTO, TechDefence Private Limited
Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School & Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies

Please confirm your participation with Natasha Vaz at natasha@cis-india.org. We sincerely hope you will be able to attend and look forward to your participation.

Download the following:

E-Governance, Identity and Privacy [PDF, 253 Kb]
Event Poster [PDF, 162 Kb]
Event Brochure [PDF, 1618 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/securing-e-governance

Why this blocking di?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T05:47:20Z

In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.

The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.

Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.

The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Acting against unknown offenders

According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.

By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.

“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.

“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.

Carpet blocking websites

But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”

A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.

“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.

However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.

ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.

According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.

In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?

What is happening internationally

John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors.(movie Bloody Money)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T21:00:57Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, producer of movie 'Blood Money' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 785/2012

VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES

..... Plaintiff

Through Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. for the Plaintiff.

versus

JYOTI CABLE NETWORKS AND ORS ..... Defendants

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

26.3.2012

I.A. No. 5598/2012 (under Section 151 CPC)

In view of the law laid down in Aktiebolaget Volvo and Ors. vs. R. Venkatachalam and Anr. 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 100, plaintiff is permitted to place on record the photocopies of the documents, subject to producing original thereof at the time of admission/denial of the documents. Application is disposed of.

I.A. No. 5597/2012 (under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Disposed of as not pressed.

CS(OS) No. 785/2012

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants in ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 12th July, 2012. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.

I.A. No.5596/2012 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment businesses. Plaintiff is the co-producer of cinematograph film ?BLOOD MONEY? along with Vishesh Films Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. In view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie ?BLOOD MONEY? would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. In case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. Factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons "John Doe" practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia. I do find force in this contention.

In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of "John Doe" order has been recognized and followed forpassing appropriate
directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a "John Doe" injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a, prima facie, case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "BLOOD MONEY" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, shareholder, officers, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees, nominees and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating without license or displaying, releasing showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, and/or defraying the movie ?BLOOD MONEY? in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "BLOOD MONEY" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Pen drives, Hard drives, Tapes, CAS or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
MARCH 26, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-blood-money

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Department)

Jai Anand — 2013-02-19T11:20:32Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, producer of movie 'Department' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 1373/2012

VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES ..... Plaintiff

Through : Mr.Akhil Sibal and Mr.Harshvardhan Jha, Advs.

versus

JYOTI CABLE NETWORK and ORS ..... Defendants

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

ORDER

14.05.2012

IA.No.9096/2012 (u/O.26 R.9 CPC)

Dismissed as not pressed at this stage.

IA.No.9097/2012 (EXEMPTION)

This is an application filed by plaintiff seeking exemption from filing certified/original copy of documents/orders.

Exemption allowed subject to plaintiff?s filing certified/original copy of documents, sought to be relied upon, within ten weeks from today.

Application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 1373/2012 and IA.No.9095/2012 (STAY)

Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.

Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to defendants, returnable on 23.08.2012.

Counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment businesses. Plaintiff is the co-producer of cinematograph film "DEPARTMENT" along with wide Frames Pictures. Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. Counsel further contends that in view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie "DEPARTMENT" would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos.1 to 5 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos.6 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar.

Mr.Sibal next submits that in case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. It has also been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been
noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons "John Doe" practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia.

I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the plaint, application and the documents filed along with the plaint. I do find force in the submission made by counsel for the plaintiff. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors., reported at 2003 FSR 22 at page 407, principles of John Doe order has been recognized and
followed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No.821/2011 titled
UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a "John Doe" injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the
fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken.

I am satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Prima facie the plaintiff has been able to establish that plaintiff has the exclusive copyright over the film "DEPARTMENT" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and
the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant nos.1 to 5 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, the purpose of filing of the present suit shall be defeated and the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, shareholder, officers, servants, agents, representatives,franchisees, nominees and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating without license or displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, and/or defraying the movie "DEPARTMENT" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "DEPARTMENT" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Pen drives, Hard drives, Tapes, CAS or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

G.S.SISTANI, J

MAY 14, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-department

John Doe order in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. (movie 7 Khoon Maaf)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T20:09:27Z

This is the case filed by UTV Software Communication against Home cable Network and other uknown network operators. restraining them from infringing the copyrights under Section 14(1) and Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for its movie '7 Khoon maaf' and 'Thank You' and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) No. 821/2011

UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi
Prakash, Mr. Varun Pathak, Adv. ,
Ms. Avni Singh, Adv.

versus

HOME CABLE NETWORK LTD and ORS ..... Defendants
Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

O R D E R
04.04.2011

IA No.5384/2011

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CS(OS) No.821/2011
Subject to the plaintiff taking steps within one week, issue summons in the suit to the defendants by ordinary process, registered cover and through approved courier, returnable on 14th July, 2011 before the Joint Registrar.
The summons to the defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within four weeks of the receipt of the summons. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replicationand rejoinder within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy of the written statement and reply.
In case the written statement is not filed within the time stipulated above, the same shall be taken on record only subject to imposition of heavy costs.
The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims alongwith their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance which shall be also filed within the pleadings.
Admission/denial of documents shall be filed on affidavit by the parties within two weeks of the completion of the pleadings. The affidavit shall include the list of the documents of the other party. The deponent shall indicate its position with regard to the documents against the particulars of each document.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that without prejudice to its rights, contentions and claims in the suit, his client would be willing to explore the possibility of settlement by recourse to mediation.
The summons shall indicate that it is open to the parties to access the facility of negotiating a settlement with the other side before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the court complex. In case the defendants are so desirous of pursuing negotiations, it shall be open to them to do so. Such participation in the mediation shall be without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit.
In such eventuality, the defendant shall inform the plaintiff as well as his counsel of the same by a written notice. Such written notices shall be treated as consent of the parties to the mediation process.
The plaintiff and/or defendants may then approach the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for facilitating mediation in the matter. Any or both of the parties shall place the copy of this order as well as the written notice before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre which shall proceed in accordance with the rules of the Centre.
During the course of mediation, it shall be open to the mediator to join any other person(s) considered necessary for effective mediation and dispute resolution.
The Registry shall enclose the information brochure published by Samadhan the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with the summons.
The parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 14th July, 2011.
The matter shall be fixed before the court for reporting outcome of the mediation/framing of issues on 15th September, 2011.
The schedule fixed by this order shall not be interdicted by the pendency of the matter in mediation. IA No. 5383/2011 (Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC).
Issue notice, returnable on 15th September, 2011.
The plaintiff is the producer/co-producer/distributor of several movies detailed in the plaint including the film "7 Khoon Maaf" which has been recently released. It is asserted that the latest film produced by the plaintiff titled "Thank you" is to be released on 8th April, 2011.
The suit has been necessitated for the reason that the plaintiff has experienced large scale violation of its copyright in earlier films produced by it by several known and unknown cable operators who telecast pirated version of the films of the plaintiff on cable networks, violating rights of the plaintiff and causing irreparable loss and damage. A single telecast by the defendants and other operators would simultaneously reach several hundred thousand homes. As a result, the loss which results to the plaintiff is irreparable and cannot be computed in terms of money.
The plaintiff also complains that additionally the quality of the film which is telecast by these cable operators is inferior and impacts its reputation. Loss to the exchequer by way of collection of entertainment tax, etc. has been also pointed out.
Based on its past experience, it is urged by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that an investigation was undertaken into the business being run by the defendant no.1 and extensive positive information with regard to the violation of the plaintiff?s copyright in the plaintiff's film "7 Khoon Maaf", has been received. The investigation report obtained by the plaintiff has been placed on record.
It has also been urged at great length that apart from the cable operators who have been arrayed as defendants, there are several other cable operators in the field who operate in an identical manner to cause violation of the plaintiff?s copyright. The plaintiff is not able to establish the full particulars of these persons which have consequently not been placed in the plaint. Such persons have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos.19 to 50 named as ?Mr. Ashok Kumar?. The plaintiff urges that these defendants are unknown identities who would also telecast the unauthorizedly and illegally telecast pirated version of the plaintiff's films by their network without any licence.
The plaintiff invokes the inherent power of this court under Section 151 of the CPC to evolve a fair and reasonable procedure to address the peculiar facts and circumstances over the pleaded violations by the defendants including defendant nos.19 to 50. In this regard, reliance is placed on the internationally adopted "John Doe" practice obtaining in USA, Canada, UK, Australia and other jurisdictions as well as this country's obligation under the TRIPPS agreement to effectively enforce IPR rights of parties including those as in the present one. It is urged that a similar order deserves to be passed in the present case.
In support of this submission, my attention has been drawn to a judgment dated 14th June, 2002 passed in CS(OS) No. 1072/2002 Taj Television Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. reported at 2003 FSR 22 on similar facts, this court had noticed the following submissions of counsel for the plaintiff seeking a John Doe order:- 11. Mr. Anand submitted that conduct of various unscrupulous cable channel companies/distributors such as the defendants is well known. The aspect of channel is being illegally aired on the local cable networks has almost taken on a regular feature. He prayed that in the facts and circumstances apart from giving necessary directions be also given for defendant Nos. 7 to 20, in other words, the court may pass "John Doe" orders.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on Trade Marks Law of Canada in which it is mentioned that John Doe? orders enabling the order to be served upon persons whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff at the time the action was commenced, but whose activity falls within the scope of the action. This form of naming a party is considered a mere "misnomer", and as long as the "litigating finger" is pointed at such person then the misnomer is not fatal. This proposition has been taken from Jackson v/s Bubels (1972) 28 DLT. (3d) 500 (B.C.C.A.) and Dukoff vs.Teronto General Hospital (1986),54,O.R.(2d) 50(H.C.).

Mr. Anand submitted that ?John Doe? orders are passed by American, English, Canadian and Australian Courts frequently. He further submitted that this court also possesses enormous inherent powers to formulate the orders which are necessary to meet the peculiar facts and peculiar situations., In the first U.S. Federal "John Doe" order, Shaw vs Various John Does, No 80 Civ,722 (S.D.N.Y.Fe,6,1980) the court held that a court of equity was always free to fashion a decree in keeping with the needs of the litigants. Similarly, in Billy Joel vs. Various John Does, 1980 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12841 the Court held:

Were the Injunction to be denied, Plaintiffs would be without any legal means to prevent what is clearly a blatant infringement of their valid property rights. While the proposed remedy is novel, that in itself should not weigh against its adoption by this court. A court of equity is free to fashion whatever remedies will adequately protect the rights for the parties before it.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. The Court held that the inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore, it must be held that the court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature. Mr. Anand placed reliance on EMI Records Ltd . v. Kudhail and others (1985) FSR 36, (1983) Com LR 280.

Mr. Anand , Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has made references to a large number of Canadian, Australian, English and American cases but I would not like to burden this order with all the judgments on which reliance has been placed at this stage. Since ?John Doe? orders are passed in the court of Canada, America, England, Australia and in some other countries. The judicial systems of all these countries have basic similarity with our judicial system. Therefore, looking to the extra ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice the courts in India would also be justified in passing "John Doe" orders. It is noteworthy that after such finding keeping in view the peculiar facts of the CS(OS) No. 1072/2002, a John Doe order was not passed.
My attention has also been drawn to an order dated 24th November, 2006 in CS(OS) No. 2189/2006 wherein the court has granted an injunction order in terms of the above observations. This court as such has the jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of a John Doe order injunction unknown persons in circumstances as have been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following observations of the court in Tej Television (Supra) in the context of cable operators:-
I have carefully considered the relevant documents, averments of the application and judgments of various courts. Undoubtedly, the cable operators in India have a long history of violating copyrights. A very large number of court orders are testimony to this. The cable operators are encouraged owning to the unique nature of cable piracy and the unstructured nature of the cable industry, the speed with which any trace of infringement can be erased by the cable operators, enforcement of rights in conservative nature is unlikely to effectively redress the plaintiffs' grievance.
The plaintiff has approached this court seeking protection of its valuable rights against such unwarranted, unauthorized and illegal actions of the defendants nos. 1 to 18 as well as the Mr. Ashok Kumars arrayed as defendant nos. 19 to 50 which have violated and diluted the exclusive copyright vested with the plaintiff in respect of the films "7 Khoon Maaf". The plaintiff has expressed apprehensions that the defendants would violate the plaintiff's rights in its film "Thank You".
The plaintiff has asserted violation of its rights and violations of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Cable Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 before this court. The material placed before this court would show that the plaintiff has copyright in the films produced by it and only authorized licensees can telecast the films.
The plaintiff has specifically averred that the defendants in the suit have not signed any agreement with regard to the film. As such telecast of these films is violative of section 14(1)(d) and 16 of the Copyright Act.
It is urged that unauthorized cable transmission of the plaintiff's films shall result in irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff. It would also encourage other cable operators who have currently procured licenses/entered into agreements with the plaintiff and possess valid license/agreements, to also telecast the films without making necessary payments. In support of the grievance that the damage would be irreparable, it is pointed out that the cable industry has an unstructured composition and it would be impossible to assess the damages which may result on account of unauthorized telecast/broadcast/distribution.
The modus operandi adopted by unauthorized cable operators is to prepare poor copies of the films when they are being screened in the picture hall and telecast the same on their network to cable homes attached to them. It would appear that public interest would also suffer on account of poor programme quality. There is prima facie substance in the plaintiff's contention that the same would impact the plaintiffs reputation as well.
In view of the foregoing, it would prima facie appear that unlicensed broadcast of the reproduction rights vested in the plaintiff by telecasting the plaintiff's films "7 Khoon Maaf" and the forthcoming film "Thank You" in the foregoing manner is illegal, unfair and deserves to be prohibited. Consequently, unless injunction as prayed for is granted by this court, the business of the plaintiff herein would be irreparably impacted. Balance of convenience and interest of justice are in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
It is accordingly directed as follows :-
(i) that the defendants/their agents, representatives, franchisees, sub-operators, head ends and/or anyone claiming under them are hereby restrained from telecasting or in any other manner communicating to the viewing pubic/subscribers either by means of wireless diffusion or by wire a pirated version of the films "7 Khoon Maaf" and "Thank You" and/or in any other manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff therein.
(ii) It is further directed that till the present order is vacated or modified, the direction shall operate against the defendants, their agents,representatives, franchises, sub-operators or any person claiming under them an injunction.
(iii) Further injunction in terms of serial no. (i) above is passed against un-named and undisclosed persons who may be likewise committing breach of the rights of the plaintiff in a similar manner.
(iv) The SHO/Superintendent of the concerned police station(s) are directed to render assistance to the plaintiff should any be required for purposes of enforcement of the present order as it is the obligation of the police authorities and the State to enforce judicial orders passed.
(v) The plaintiff is permitted to publish the John Doe injunction order issued today in local newspapers in all states where it has expressed apprehensions of violation of its rights. Consequences in accordance with law would thereafter follow.
(vi) The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of the proviso to rule 3 of order 39 of the CPC within a period of ten days from today.

Copy of this order be given dasti as well as dasti under the signatures of the court master of this court.

GITA MITTAL, J
APRIL 04, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-utv-communications-v.-home-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-7-khoon-maaf

John Doe order in R.K. Productions Pvt. Ltd. V.BSNL,MTNL, Bharti and Ors. (movie 3)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T13:43:20Z

This is the 'John Doe' order obtained by R.K. Productions Pvt. Ltd. , the producers of movie '3' against 14 ISPs and other unknown entitties restraining them from infringing their copyrights of the movie.

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(Ordinary Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday, The 29th Day of March 2012
The Hon’ble Ms Justice K.B.K. Vasuki
O.A. No. 230 of 2012
in
C.S No. 208 of 2012

M/s R K Productions Private Limited,
16/5, Rajamannar Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai – 600017                                                  …….. Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

1.    Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001
2.    Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Jeevan Bharti Tower-I
124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi – 110 001
3.    Bharati Airtel Limited,
Bharti Crescent,
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phase II,
New Delhi – 110 070
4.    Aircel Cellular Limited
5th Floor, Spencer Plaza,
769, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002
5.    Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited,
4th Floor, “Rahejas”
Main Avenue, Sanatacruz(W),
Mumbai – 400 054
6.    Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited
MTS Tower, 3, Amrapali Circle,
Vaishalinagar, Jaipur – 302 021
7.    Vodafone India Limited
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013
8.    Idea Cellular Limited
Suman Tower, Plot No. 18,
Sector – II, Gandhinagar,
Gujrat – 382 011

9.    Reliance Communications Limited
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
Navi Mumbai – 400 709
10.    Tata Teleservices Limited
Jeevan Bharati Tower I,
10th Floor, 124, Connuaght Circus,
New Delhi – 110 001
11.    Tata Teleservices Limited
2A, Old Ishwar Nagar,
Main Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110 065
12.    O-Zone Networks Private Limited
Ground Floor, C-45,
Green Park, New Delhi – 110 016
13.    Tikona Digital Networks Private Limited,
3A, 3rd Floor, ‘Corpora’, L.B.S. Marg,
Bhandup(West), Mumbai – 400 078
14.    BG Broadband, India Private Limited
Plot No. 54, Marol Industrial Cooperative Area,
Off Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059
15.    Sify Technologies Limited,
2nd Floor, “TIDEL PARK”,
No.4, Canal Bank Road,
Chennai – 600 113
16.    Ashok Kumar
Unknown Person, India
17.    Ashok Kumar
Unknown Person, India
18.    Ashok Kumar
Unknown Person, India
19.    Ashok Kumar
Unknown Person, India
20.    Ashok Kumar
Unknown Person, India                                           ………. Respondents/Defendants

Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant an order of temporary, Interim, ad-interim, injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants and other unknown persons by themselves, their partners/proprietor, heirs, representatives, successors in business, assigns, distributors, agents or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the applicant’s copyright in the cinematographic film/motion picture “3” by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing camcording or Communicating or allowing others to communicate or making available or distributing or duplicating or displaying or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing and/or in any manner communicating the applicant’s movie “3” in any manner without a proper license from the applicant or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the applicant’s copyright in the said cinematographic film “3” through different mediums including CD,DVD, Blu-ray disc, VCD, cable TV, Direct to home services, internet services, multimedia messaging services, pen drives, hard drives, tapes, conditional access systems or in any other like manner whatsoever pending disposal of the suit.

This original application coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr. A. A. Mohan, Advocate for the applicant herein, and upon reading the Judges summons and the affidavit of L H Harish Ram, filed herein and the plaint, it is ordered as follows:-

That 1. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, 2. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Jeevan Bharti Tower – 1, 3. Bharti Airtel limited, Bharti Crescemt, 4. Aircel Cellular Limited, 5. Hathway cable & Datacom Limited, 6. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited, 7. Vodafone India Limited, 8. Idea Cellular Limited, 9. Reliance Communications limited, 10. Tata Teleservices Limited, Jeevan Bharati Tower – 1, 11. Tata Teleservices Limited, 12. O-Zone Networks Private Limited, 13. Tikona Digital Networks Private Limited, 14. BG Broadbank India Private Limited, 15. Sify Technologies Limited, 16.Ashok Kumar, 17. Ashok Kumar 18. Ashok Kumar 19. Ashok Kumar, 20. Ashok Kumar the respondents/defendants herein, and other unknown persons by themselves, their partners/proprietor, heirs, representatives, successors in business, assigns distributors, agents or any one claiming through them be and are hereby restrained by an order of interim injunction until further orders of this court from in any manner infringing the applicant’s copyright in the cinematographic film/motion picture “3” by coping, recording, reproducing or allowing camcording or communicating or allowing others to communicate or making available or distributing or duplicating or displaying or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing and /or in any manner communicating the applicant’s movie “3” in any manner without a proper license from the applicant or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the applicant’s copyright in the said cinematographic film “3” through different mediums including CD, DVD, Blu-ray disc, VCD, cable TV, Direct to home services, internet services, multimedia messaging services, pen drives, hard drives, tapes, conditional access systems or in any other like manner whatsoever.

2. That the private notice of this original application is ordered to the respondents for the hearing on 18.04.2012.

3. That the applicant/plaintiff herein, be and is hereby permitted to publish the John Doe injunction order passed today, in the newspapers both Tamil and English having wide circulation so as to make all the concerned aware of this order.

4. That this O.A. No. 230 of 2012 be posted on 18.04.2012.

Witness the Hon’ble Thiru M. Yusuf Eqbal, The Chief Justice, High Court At Madras Aforesaid, This The 29th Day of March 2012.

Order Dated – 29.03.2012

The HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE
K.B.K. VASUKI

Approved On – 29.03.2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-r.k.-productions-v.-bsnl-mtnl-and-ors.-movie-3

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Bitoo Boss)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T11:55:18Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, producer of movie 'Bitoo Boss' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 937/2012

VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr.Akhil Sibal and Mr.Harshvardhan Jha, Advocates

versus

JYOTI CABLE NETWORK and ORS ..... Defendant

Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

ORDER

11.04.2012

IA.No.6433/2012 (u/O.26 R.9 CPC)

Dismissed as not pressed at this stage.

IA.No.6434/2012 (EXEMPTION

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 937/2012 and IA.No.6432/2012 (STAY)

Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to defendants, returnable on 18.07.2012.

Counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment businesses. Plaintiff is the co-producer of cinematograph film "Bittoo Boss" along with wide Frames Pictures. Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. Counsel further contends that in view of "the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced" technology, the movie "Bittoo Boss" would be copied and
distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. Mr.Sibal next submits that in case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff.

It has also been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons "John Doe" practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia.

I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the plaint, application and the documents filed along with the plaint. I do find force in the submission made by counsel for the plaintiff. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of John Doe order has been recognized and followed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled
UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors.,has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of?a ?John Doe? injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons
indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken.

I am satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Prima facie the plaintiff has been able to establish that plaintiff has the exclusive copyright over the film "Bittoo Boss" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made
and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, the purpose of filing of the present suit shall be defeated and the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, shareholder, officers, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees, nominees and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating without license or displaying, releasing showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, and/or defraying the movie "Bittoo Boss" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Bittoo Boss" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc, VCD, Cable TV,
DTH, Internet services, MMS, Pen drives, Hard drives, Tapes, CAS or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

G.S.SISTANI, J

APRIL 11, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-bitoo-boss

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Players)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T11:32:02Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, producer of movie 'Players' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 3288/2011

VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES ..... Plaintiff

Through Mr Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with

Mr Harsh Wardhan Jha, Adv.

versus

JYOTI CABLE NETWORK and ORS ..... Defendants

Through Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

O R D E R

23.12.2011

I.A. No.20946/2011, I.A. No.20947/2011

The original/certified documents/typed copy be filed within twelve weeks from today. The applications are disposed of.

I.A. No.20948/2011 (u/S 148 r/w S 151 CPC)

The court fees has been filed. The application is disposed of.

Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

At the first instance, summons be issued to the defendants 1 to 5, on filing of process fee and registered AD cover within one week, returnable on 10.02.2012.

I.A. No.20944/2011 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)

Notice be issued to the defendants 1 to 5 for the date fixed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff who has referred to various paras of the paint as well as the documents placed on record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also referred to the similar order dated 19.12.2011 passed in CS(OS) No. 3207/2011. Hence, till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from in any way communicating without license or displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie "Players" or in any other manner violating the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Players" through any and different media like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet, MMS, Tapes,

Conditional Access System.

Compliance of order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made within one week.

I.A. No.20945/2011 (u/o 26 R 9 CPC)

The learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press this application. The same is dismissed.

Dasti.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

DECEMBER 23, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-players

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Don 2)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T11:18:44Z

This is the case filed by Reliance Big Entertainment, producer of movie 'Don 2' against Multivision Network and other unknown network operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 3207/2011

RELIANCE BIG ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff

Through Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Agrawal and Mr.M.Mehta, Advs. for the Plaintiff.
versus

MULTIVISION NETWORK AND ORS ..... Defendants

Through

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

ORDER

19.12.2011

I.A. No. 20512/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Typed and clear copies of dim annexures be filed within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.

I.A. No. 20511/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Original copies be filed within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.
CS(OS) No. 3207/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 19th April, 2012 before Joint Registrar. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.

I.A. No.20510/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment businesses. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "DON2". Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. In view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie ?DON2? would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 15 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 16 to 36 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. In case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. Factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons ?John Doe? practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia. I do find force in this contention. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of ?John Doe? order has been recognized and followed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a ?John Doe? injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a, prima facie, case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "DON2" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant Nos. 1 to 15 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from copying, recording or allowing camcording or communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "DON2" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff?s copyright in the said cinematograph film "DON2" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue- ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Pen drives, Hard drives, Tapes, CAS or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v.-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-don-2

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Speedy Singh)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T10:58:23Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, producer of movie 'Speedy Singh' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unkown cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

21.09.2011

Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Tandon, Adv. for the Plaintiff.

I.A. No. 15224/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Deficient Court fee be made good within 3 days.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.

CS(OS) No. 2352/2011

Plaint be registered as a Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 19th December, 2011. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.

I.A. No. 15223/2011 (u/O 26 R 9 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

I.A. No. 15222/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment business. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Speedy Singhs". Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. In view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie "Speedy Singhs" would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. In case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. Factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons "John Doe" practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia. I do find force in this contention. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of "John Doe" order has been recognized and followed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a "John Doe" injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial notice of this fact can be taken.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a, prima facie, case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Speedy Singhs" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendants and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, shareholder, officers, servants and agents, their representatives, franchisees, nominees and other known and unknown parties are restrained from in any way communicating without license or displaying, releasing, showing uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie "Speedy Singhs" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film Speedy Singhs through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System
or in any other like manner. Plaintiff is permitted to publish the "John Doe" injunction order passed today in the local newspapers so as to make all the concerned aware of this order. Further, Station House Officer(s) of the concerned police station(s) are directed to render necessary assistance to the plaintiff should any be required for purposes of
enforcement of the present order.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
September 21, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-speedy-singh

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Bodyguard)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T10:34:59Z

This is the case filed by Reliance Big Entertainment, producer of movie 'Boduguard' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unkown network operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

26.08.2011
Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Agrawal and Ms. Shikha Sarin, Advs. for the Plaintiff.

I.A. No. 13476/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Typed and clear copies of dim annexures be filed within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.
I.A. No. 13475/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Original copies be filed within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.
CS(OS) No. 2066/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 30th September, 2011. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.
I.A. No. 13474/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.
Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment business. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Bodyguard". Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. In view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie "Bodyguard" would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 9 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 10 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. In case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. Factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVD /Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons "John Doe" practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia. I do find force in this contention. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of "John Doe" order has been recognized and fo llowed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a "John Doe" injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case.

Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken. In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a, prima facie, case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Bodyguard" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "Bodyguard" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff?s copyright in the said cinematograph film "Bodyguard" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner. Plaintiff is permitted to publish the "John
Doe" injunction order passed today in the local newspapers.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
August 26, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v.-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-bodyguard

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Loot)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T09:48:34Z

This is the case filed by Viacom 18, producer of movie 'Loot' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unkwon cable operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 2652/2011

VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Tandon, Adv.

versus

JYOTI CABLE NETWORK and ORS ..... Defendants

Through :

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

24.10.2011

I.A. No. 17044/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Typed and clear copies of dim annexures be filed within four weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.
I.A. No. 17043/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Certified/original copies of documents be filed within four weeks.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.
I.A. No. 17045/2011 (under Section 148 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
Deficient court fee be made good within one week.
Application is disposed of with the above direction.

I.A. No. 17042/2011 (under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC {appointment of Local Commissioner)

Disposed of as not pressed.

CS(OS) No. 2652/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary process, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 20th January, 2012 before the Joint Registrar. Process fee etc. be filed within one week.

I.A. No. 17041/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films and other entertainment business. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Loot". Plaintiff has copyright over the said film. In view of the past experience plaintiff apprehends that by using advanced technology, the movie ?Loot? would be copied and distributed in the market on DVDs/CDs as also exhibited on cable and internet by defendant nos. 1 to 5 and other unknown persons who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name Ashok Kumar. In case the film is shown on cable, internet and/or through any other medium by the persons, who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to watch the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. Factum of copying and distributing the film by such unscrupulous persons on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs and through various other mediums has been noticed in the past in respect of new releases not only by the plaintiff but other producers as well. It is contended that with regard to such unknown persons ?John Doe? practice has to be resorted to, which is otherwise well recognized not only in India but in various other countries such as United States of America, Canada, England and Australia. I do find force in this contention. In Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 at page 407 principles of "John Doe" order has been recognized and followed for passing appropriate directions against such unknown and unscrupulous cable operators. A Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 titled UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors., has noted that court has jurisdiction to pass an order in nature of a "John Doe" injunction order against unknown persons in the circumstances, as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs and distributing the same has also been taken note in the said order. One can also not lose sight of the fact that film piracy in respect of such new release is not uncommon and judicial note of this fact can be taken.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a, prima facie, case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Loot" which is yet to be released. In case, CDs/ DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDs are made and the film is copied by using any other device and uploaded on internet by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and other unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury.

For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "Loot" in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Loot" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner. Plaintiff is permitted to publish the "John Doe" injunction order passed today in the local newspapers.

Compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made within one week.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J
OCTOBER 24, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-viacom-18-v.-jyoti-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-loot

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T10:03:52Z

This is the case filed by Reliance Big Entertainment, producer of movie 'Boduguard' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown network operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

20.07.2011
Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi and Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advs. for the Plaintiff.

I.A. No. 11242/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Exemption allowed, subject to filing of original documents, as mentioned in the application, by the plaintiff within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 11243/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Allowed, subject to all just exemptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 1724/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 30th September, 2011.
I.A. No. 11241/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Singham". Plaintiff apprehends that the said movie will be copied and DVDs/CDs thereof will be prepared, distributed in the market as also shown on TV by the cable operators, thereby causing huge financial losses to the plaintiff. In case the film is shown on cable and internet, by the persons who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to see the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. It is contended that copying and distributing the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCD, etc., by such unscrupulous persons has been noticed in respect of new releases in recent past. Such films are shown by the cable operators. It is further contended that plaintiff is able to find out the names of defendant nos. 1 to 5 who had been indulging in such activities. Apart from them, many unknown persons may also indulge in similar activity. Since names and addresses of such cable operators/persons are not known, they have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name of "Mr. Ashok Kumar". It is contended that in this regard "John Doe", practice may have to be resorted which is well recognized not only in United States of America, Canada, England and Australia but also in India. Reliance has been placed on Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 and order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors.

Perusal of the orders, reliance whereupon has been placed by the plaintiff, shows that such unknown unauthorized persons can be arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 and "John Doe" order may be passed against such persons enabling plaintiff to serve order upon such persons when their identity is disclosed. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray disc and distributing the same has also been recognized in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a prima facie case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Singham" which is yet to be released. In case, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD are made by unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "Singham" in any manner without proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Singham" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
July 20, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham

We are anonymous, we are legion

Do IT Rules 2011 indirectly leads to Censorship of Internet

Video

Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics

Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information

Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy

Agenda

Session I

Session II

Session III

Confirmed Speakers

Download the following:

Why this blocking di?

Acting against unknown offenders

Carpet blocking websites

What is happening internationally

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors.(movie Bloody Money)

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Department)

John Doe order in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. (movie 7 Khoon Maaf)

John Doe order in R.K. Productions Pvt. Ltd. V.BSNL,MTNL, Bharti and Ors. (movie 3)

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Bitoo Boss)

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Players)

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Don 2)

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Speedy Singh)

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Bodyguard)

John Doe order in Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network and Ors. (movie Loot)

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)