We are anonymous, we are legion

Watch out for cyber bullies

praskrishna — 2012-06-05T06:08:19Z

It's time to take a closer look at this form of cyber crime in India, writes KV Kurmanath in an article published in the Hindu Business Line on June 4, 2012.

The suicide of Tyler Clementi, the 18-year-old New Jersey student in 2010, had triggered a strong debate on invasion of privacy in the cyber age.

His roommate, an Indian student, captured the boy kissing another man in their hostel using his web camera.

The boy jumped into a river unable to take the humiliation, when the former tried to circulate the clip. Though the court refused to link the recording with the death, it sentenced the Indian youth to 30 days in prison last month.

What Clementi was subjected to is cyber bullying, argued those who campaigned for the Indian student's deportation.

Along with other cyber crimes, cyber bullying is on the rise in India too. The fledgling cyber police wings in different states are being flooded with complaints of invasion of privacy, blackmail and circulating electronic messages that cause annoyance.

Ms Aparna (name changed) was aghast when a close friend called her up about a nude picture of her being circulated on the web. A quick check pointed the needle of suspicion at a friend who she had just spurned. Angered by her rejection, the boy morphed her picture, checked into her email account and sent it to all the people in the contact list.

After finding Facebook not so amusing, Sujatha (name changed) decided to close her account and discussed this with a few friends too. A few days later, she found both her FB and gmail accounts compromised. She also found obscene pictures posted on the same.

Legal Issues

Incidents like these are growing sharply with poor knowledge among users abut how to protect accounts. Sharing one's passwords with others too is proving dangerous.

Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar, a cyber laws expert at NALSAR University, says the crimes cited above come under the bracket of invasion of privacy.

He says Section 66A in the amended IT Act deals with these crimes. Sending any message (through a computer or a communication device) that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; any communication which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing insult, annoyance, criminal intimidation comes under this section. This crime, he says, is punishable up to three years with a fine.

Prof. Sridhar, who has just completed a book on cyber laws, feels that punishments under the IT Act are insufficient. "They should be read with the Indian Penal Code. This will be an effective method to check cyber crimes," he says.

Prof. Sridhar also represents the Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy (GIGA) at the Law University. GIGA conducts research on the Internet and takes up advocacy and training programmes on Internet Governance.

"We already have anti-voyeurism provisions in the IT Act under Sec. 66E," Mr Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Centre for Internet and Security, says.

This offence is punishable with ‘imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.'

Repeated harassment aka cyber bullying can be addressed using the already over-broad provisions under Sec. 66A. Unfortunately this Section goes too far and can be used to censor legitimate speech.

"Security and privacy awareness in India is very poor. It would be very useful if both the government and civil society was more aggressive in awareness raising and triggering change in behaviour. Unfortunately this is a bit like smoking - even though people are aware of the issues - they engage in risky behaviour online," he says.

Lack of Data

Mr.Pavan Duggal, Chairman of Cyber Law Committee and Cyber laws expert, said there is no specific data on cyber crime in India and the data available with the NCRB (National Crimes Records Bureau) of around 900 cases for overall cybercrime is also doubtful.

"The solution is to make cyber laws more strict as current law under IT Act 2000 is a bailable offence with three years imprisonment and a fine," he points out.

"IT Act 2000 has to be re-amended to specific provisions pertaining to cyber bullying. Further, cyber bullying needs to be made a serious offence with minimum five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 lakh. Unless you have deterrence in law it will be a continuing offence," he observes.

Fortunately, there are some safeguards which can help prevent such acts of cyber offences. In most cases, the acts of bullying or blackmailing are done by someone close to the victims. People should make it a point to keep their Internet identities very safe.

One should not disclose their identities such as passwords or hint questions to anyone – no matter how close they are. Parents should keep an eye on their children who are addicted to the Internet. They should inform and educate their children on the clear and present dangers that lurk on the Net.

They should also teach the importance of respecting others' privacy apart from taking precautions to keep their private space very safe.

(with inputs from Ronendra Singh)

Click to read the original published in the Hindu Business Line. Sunil Abraham is qouted in this article.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/watch-out-for-cyber-bullies

Scared by a spoof? You’ve got to be kidding me!

praskrishna — 2012-06-05T05:24:09Z

Whether it is Mamata Banerjee's recent crackdown on a comic strip or the new legal guidelines that allow touchy readers to have objectionable content taken down, what you say online is under scrutiny. What, then, will happen to news satire websites?

The article by Dhamini Ratnam was published in the Times of India on June 3, 2012

"Meri site www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com kabse band ho chuki hai (...) Humara sabse bada hathiyar humse chheena ja raha hai (...) Aaj chup rahe toh phir bolne ke liye zubaan bhi nahin bachegi." (My site www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com has been shut down (...) Our biggest weapon is being taken away from us (...) If we remain silent, we won't be left with anything to articulate with").

That's the first thing you read on Kanpur-based blogger Aseem Trivedi's new site, www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.blogspot.in, on which he transferred all his satirical cartoons earlier this year, after he found that his website had been arbitrarily blocked based on a complaint lodged with the Mumbai Crime Branch last December.

In May, Trivedi went on a hunger strike. His point was simple. The police had no right to have his website taken down, under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, or even under the new Information Technology (intermediary guidelines) Rules, 2011. These rules came into effect last April, and give 36 hours to the intermediary (read Internet Service Provider) to take down content deemed 'objectionable'.

At the face of it, this may seem like a handing over of power to Internet users. But what does this hold out for news satire websites that routinely critique public figures, spoof politics and play an important role in raising public awareness through humour?

For one, in a surprising move, the editors are giving up being anonymous. Says Rahul Roushan, editor, Faking News, "I began this site under the pseudonym Pagal Patrakar in 2008. By the end of 2009, I didn't want to remain anonymous anymore."

Roushan, who is based in Gurgaon, felt readers weren't taking him seriously. "Unless there's a face to such sites, people will think you're spreading lies," says the 33-year-old former television news anchor. Yet, coming out wasn't a cakewalk. "A post I wrote about on the anti-people policy of Mr Thackeray received a comment that I am a Bihari, and therefore against Marathi manoos. Had he not known my name, the reader would never have written such a comment," says Roushan.

Yet, Roushan would rather have his readers - his blog gets 10 lakh page views a month - trust his judgement.

However, recent events, including Pashimbanga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's crackdown on a comic strip, and Union human resource development, communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal's suggestion to Internet giants to "regulate themselves" has left Roushan and other news satire website editors wary.The new IT guidelines, fears Roushan, will create an army of self-righteous people with "a lot of hurt sentiments".

"I'm scared of sentiments," he says, wryly.

T S Sudhir, editor of Tenali Rama Reports, a news spoof site that was started in September 2011, feels the trick to safeguard against such "sentiments" is to maintain a rigorous editorial policy. "No obscene, lewd or toilet humour," says the Hyderabadbased former journalist.

The recent fracas over Mamata's 'Maoist' concerns, for instance, elicited a light-hearted piece that said all dosa-eaters are Maoists, because 'mao' in Tamil means 'batter'. "India has a long-standing political tradition of satire, and readers are used to political cartoons with biting humour."

Mangalore-based political cartoonist Satish Acharya, however, has faced the brunt for his biting humour. In September 2011, a Mumbai Crime Branch officer asked him to take down a cartoon depicting Sharad Pawar in a red gown that Acharya had posted on his blog, after it was published in a Mumbaibased tabloid. "In political cartoons, what is the yardstick to measure what is objectionable," asks Acharya. "Can a policeman decide whether a political cartoon is objectionable and have it taken down?"

Programme manager at The Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, Pranesh Prakash has a one word reply: No. Together with his teammates, Prakash is working on a set of guidelines that counters the Intermediary Rules and offers checks and balances without trampling on fundamental rights. For instance, says Prakash, after a complaint is made, the content owner - say the website editor, or cartoonist - should be allowed to reply. If the problem persists, the complainant can go to court.

If cartoons are an effective vehicle of critique online, so are videos. The UnReal Times, run by New Delhi-based IIM graduates C S Krishna and Karthik Laxman, shot to online fame last year after they released a video depicting the Prime Minister as Singham, the heroic character played by Ajay Devgn in a film.

"The best sort of satire," says Krishna, "is when you can't prove in the court of law that the piece is insulting." Krishna and Laxman, who do policy research work for BJP MP Uday Singh, insist that they are not card-holders for the party, and have taken pot-shots at the BJP, too. "Since political satire focuses on mocking the establishment, the UPA government is the subject of most our (satirical) pieces on politics," says Krishna. Tanay Sukumar, editor of News That Matters Not, feels that the content should be directed at a problematic policy, not person. Engineering students Sukumar and Sugandha, who founded the site in 2009, feel that a satirist needs to distinguish between what is necessary and what isn't. "Portraying a political figure using sexual innuendo might be funny for several readers, but would be "unnecessary" in most cases. Our job is to to critique governance." In the case of a crackdown, however, they are clear about what they'd do: they'll take down the 'offending' piece, and then write about having done so. "We will not offend them; we will wear them out," they say.

Want to start a news satire website? here's how:

Have a disclaimer page. Apologise in advance for "hurt sentiments", offer readers a chance to get in touch with you directly for redressal, explain why you're using satire as a tool to critique. If your ISP is asked to remove content, the current IT guidelines are such that they would need to obey. However, since the law doesn't require ISPs to keep track of content that has been removed, make noise about it. There'll be enough people online who will fight for your freedom of expression. Study satire - it's an effective tool - but learn to distinguish it from slander and falsehood. Keep the post grounded in a real event or phenomenon. Critique the agenda, not the person. Consult an IT lawyer if you are in doubt about a piece. It's always good to know your legal argument beforehand.

Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/scared-by-a-spoof

Protest@ censorship.com

praskrishna — 2012-06-05T04:23:19Z

Activism goes online as more angry young citizens decide to make their voices heard, writes Sandhya Soman in an article published in the Times of India. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in the article.

If there was a software code to ‘Invite All’, then Ashish D and friends would’ve called the world to land up at Gateway of India on June 9. The next best option for this netizen from Mumbai was to go online.

Hacktivism –– a form of activism for social change that uses computers and electronic networks –– is back. And the most recent protest is from hacker group Anonymous, which is trying to gather public support to stem internet censorship and blocking of websites in India by service providers and the government recently.

Since showing up in front of the town hall is not enough, Ashish has set up a Facebook page. Fellow netizens, irritated by the arbitrary blocking of sites and impressed by Anonymous OpIndia’s jabs at websites of political parties and corporates, are signing up to discuss the best possible venues to protest from.

Is there a better place than Marina beach in Chennai to make the maximum impact, wonders one user while another says it would be better to split up to cover more area in Mumbai. According to Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and programme manager at The Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research organisation, a strong online presence helps protests to get publicity. A lot of the Jan Lokpal agitation happened online, he says.

“It is not enough to fast at Jantar Mantar. If you get 1,000 people to click ‘like’ or 40 people to retweet your tweet, then the site becomes the default area of protest,” he says. If those petitioners are 10 influential people, then it carries more weight with the media than a few hundred shouting slogans on the street.

“Also called electronic civil disobedience, hacktivism is geared to political ends,” writes Pramod K Nayar in his book ‘An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures.’ Virtual sit-ins involving intellectuals and ordinary citizens and bombarding authorities with emails have been used by Mexican revolutionaries, Tamil separatists and protesters in Iran and the Middle East. “Hacktivism is clearly here to stay,” writes Nayar.

But it is not enough to collect a few digital signatures, says Nithin Manayath, one of the people behind the 2009 ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign, which sought to protest in an irreverent manner the attacks against women by the radical Sri Ram Sena. Manayath and his friends sustained the campaign through a Facebook group, which saw thousands of pairs of pink underwear being sent to the office of the group that attacked women for what it considered ‘violations of Indian culture’.

“Marches, candlelight vigils and dharnas are something we do regularly. By the tenth dharna you will be so jaded that you go to the protest venue to meet friends,” says Manayath. After a while, this happens to online petitions also if you are not thinking about what you are doing. “What I liked about the ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was that we were responding to violence with a shameless act. It made me aware about many things and the novelty of the protest resonated with many people,” he says.

Though the current campaign is going the offline way on June 9, the hacking and denial of service attacks on websites by Anonymous have ensured that issue of blocking got publicity. “There is corporate and private censorship of internet and it is being done without enough proof of who is violating the copyrights of moviemakers. If these protests create awareness about the larger issues and developments in the areas of e-governance, IT Act and copyright law, then they could be helpful,” says Pranesh Prakash.

Meanwhile, Anonymous OpIndia, which is hoping for lifting of ban on websites, is already getting feelers from eager citizens on future issues. “Many people have requested us to protest other issues such gasoline price hike,” says a member. “And we always tell them that there are no strict rules, they can protest as per their needs.”

NET ANGST

Through Facebook, the ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign of 2009 encouraged women to send undergarments to Sri Ram Sena. The right-wing group had attacked women for ‘violations of Indian culture’

Jan Lokpal campaign in 2011 had support from various online forums. They sent petitions to political parties and inundated a government website with e-mails.

Following the blocking of websites due to a court order to prevent copyright violations.

Anonymous OpIndia targeted government and corporate websites. It is mobilising people for protests in nearly 11 cities on June 9.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/protest-at-censorship

The Web of Our Strife

pranesh — 2012-06-04T05:45:34Z

At the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, India proposed the formation of a Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) to address what it sees as a policy vacuum in internet governance.

Pranesh Prakash's article was published in the Times of India on June 2, 2012.

This CIRP will, in the view of India's government, address the US domination of internet policymaking, and make it more democratic and 'multistakeholder'. As an example of this domination, our government cites the oversight role that the US government exercises over ICANN, the non-profit corporation that controls the net's domain name system, as well as the control it exerts over DNS root servers (with all changes needing to go through the US Department of Commerce).

But many civil society organisations, technology companies, and even a few Indian politicians (notably Rajeev Chandrashekar and P Rajeeve), oppose the CIRP as being a proposal for the UN takeover of internet governance. The role of nation-states in governing the internet has been minimal so far. Many attribute the success of the internet to this lack of interference from governments. They ask why we need to fix something that is not broken? In effect, why regulate something that clearly works without such regulation?

It is clear that this status quo will not suffice for many governments. Various countries - like the US, with its Stop Online Piracy and Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection acts, and India, with our Information Technology Act and recent Intermediary Guidelines Rules - look to actively regulate the net. ICANN, supposedly a purely technical organisation, has got embroiled in policy issues too. This was seen in the. xxx top-level domain name debacle, where governments tried to intervene, but ultimately failed. Many such purely domestic regulations, like SOPA, have international implications. Even India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules, for instance, require compliance from internet companies across the world. The US government has seized domain names of Spanish file-sharing websites that are hosted in Spain, even though they have been held to be legal there.

So while international forums exist for internetrelated policy discussions, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), they are limited by a lack of actual power to even so much as recommend policy positions. Hence there are forums for discussions, but none for resolving problems. The proposed CIRP seeks to be such a body, "with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in crosscutting internet-related global issues".

Besides, apart from domestic legislation starting to encroach upon the international nature of the internet, there's another issue: that of countries like Russia and China pushing for a less 'multistakeholder' approach to internet governance. So the status quo is unsatisfactory, the alternatives are worrisome, and attempts at 'enhanced cooperation' within existing frameworks (for instance, through India's proposal for IGF reforms) have failed to find enough backers. Given this, a CIRP-like mechanism might well be the preferred option. Importantly, a singular body within the UN system for internet policy could help ensure that other UN agencies which are even less 'multistakeholder' don't overstep their mandates and start making regulations all by themselves.

However, the current CIRP proposal lacks many safeguards that would allay the fears expressed by those who oppose it as 'government control of the internet'. First, while the Indian government has, in its proposal, laid out the CIRP's mandate, it has not laid out the limits of its powers in carrying out that mandate. Second, the CIRP is currently a government body that is merely 'advised' by various stakeholders, with nothing to indicate that this advice will be heeded. This is unsatisfactory, given the internet policy transgressions that are committed by various national governments, as seen, say, in Iran or China. Arguments that the UN system is nation-state-centric do not suffice, since processes that aren't nation-state-centric, such as the Internet Governance Forum, are also being spearheaded by the UN.

If such criticism is addressed, then the CIRP should indeed be welcomed. But we should also be realistic. Governments are effectively being asked to cede certain aspects of sovereignty by being told that the internet is a phenomenon that traditional approaches to policymaking just cannot address. They will not do so easily.

Further, the reality of international realpolitik must be acknowledged - about governments actually following the CIRP. The US, for instance, regularly ignores rulings by the ICJ and the WTO with impunity.

More importantly, and as some cyberlibertarians like Milton Mueller and Adam Thierer remind us, 'multistakeholderism' is only a process (involving multiple stakeholders), and does not provide substantive principles for internet governance (when may websites be blocked, for instance;or who should control the domain name system). Such sobering realpolitik, Mueller believes, is reason enough to be sceptical of the CIRP proposal as it currently stands. He may well be right.

But given the current trend of states individually wielding excessive powers over various aspects of how their citizens access and use the internet, a CIRP-like body may well be what is needed to safeguard democratic principles and innovation on the internet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the-web-of-our-strife

Beyond Sharing: Towards our Digital Futures

nishant — 2012-06-01T04:39:12Z

The battle is not about file sharing and a petty film producer wanting to rake in the box office earnings. It is about the law’s incapacity to deal with post-analogue practices and processes.

Down to Earth published Nishant Shah's Op-ed on May 31, 2012

Unless you have been hiding under an analogue rock, wearing a tin-foil hat and staying away from electricity, chances are you have heard about the recent court order that bans access to a massive number of file-sharing websites from India. A John Doe order by the Madras High Court, following a complaint by the producers of the movie 3, has meant Internet Service Providers across the country have had to deny access to a number of websites that have been listed as providing free access to copyrighted material. In an attempt to ensure box-office collections for their movie, whose claim to fame, ironically, is the viral ‘Kolaveri Di’ song that had captured the country’s pulse last year, the producers have now denied access to something that is the basic function of anybody immersed in Web 2.0 environments–sharing of information.

Much has been written about this ban. The battlelines are clearly drawn and from both sides we have strong arguments being made for and against piracy. Various media and culture industry people are supporting this ban, recounting losses that they have made because of people accessing pirated material online. Hacker and civil liberties groups are decrying this heavy censorship, providing numerous instances of how piracy has actually helped cultural productions gain more fame and money than they would have otherwise. There are yet others, who, while they respect the rights of the right-holders to protect themselves against copyright infringement, are furious that this blanket ban also disallows them to access material which was under a public license and material that they had produced and shared through these networks.

International Hacker groups like Anonymous are mobilising people in large numbers to come to the streets as a sign of protest against such draconian measures.

Most of these debates eventually are at loggerheads, with each side becoming louder and shriller, their positions attaining cult-like devotion and faith. In this cacophony there are some other points which get missed out. This issuance of the John Doe order has betrayed some startling flaws in how the Internet is governed in India and the alarming implications it has to the future of free, open and inclusive information societies.

One thing that this court order has made excruciatingly clear is how the Internet is not the utopian space of exchange, collaboration, crowd sourcing and sharing it was meant to be. Despite the government’s own investments in building digital infrastructure, and its rhetoric of becoming more accountable, transparent and accessible by granting digital access to the citizens, it is obvious that this is still a space that is looked at with great suspicion.

It comes as a shock to many of us that a high court issued an order which does not only impinge on freedom of speech and expression, but also fails to understand the nature of the Internet. In all reality, this ban is a farce. Everybody who has been used to the shared cultures of the online world, has found proxy servers and Internet anonymisers which allow them to hide their identity and continue with their everyday practice online. The cool kids are already doing this anyway. All we have is a stark realisation that the state might be investing heavily in digital technologies but it still has not been able to get out of the centralised broadcast ways of thinking about it.

All sharing is not piracy. Some of it is just actually sharing. All debates seem to centre only around the copyrighted material being accessed through the file sharing websites. It is a concern which is legitimate. What about all the material that is in the public domain, in the commons and available for free? The user generated content, content which might not have direct economic value but is valuable to the people who created and shared it, is also now inaccessible. In order to protect some people from piracy we have also violated the rights of many more to share. And that is a distinction that is worth preserving, as we increasingly move into becoming an information society.

In the Web 2.0 world, we are all producers of data. We not only leave traces but also put out material of cultural significance–from videos of dancing babies to knowledge that we want to share–through these peer-2-peer networks. A sudden collapse of this infrastructure almost seems to show how it is only the money-making material that is important to the state and not the other.

There is not going to be a clear, correct position in this case against file-sharing. The legal technicalities will always be hollow in the face of ideologies of openness and inclusion. The moral indignation will always be countered by facts and numbers. But in the middle of all the fights and discussions, it is also good to pay attention to what is at stake. This battle is not merely about file sharing, though there is nothing “mere” about file sharing. This battle is not about a petty film producer wanting to rake in the box office earnings. This battle is about the law’s incapacity to deal with post-analogue practices and processes.

The way we resolve these differences is going to determine the future of what it means to be public, open, free, and inclusive. Those of us who are fighting to get the word out, are not doing it only because the access to our favourite cultural products has become cumbersome, but because scared that this might well be the beginning of the end of all that we had dreamt of our digital futures.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/beyond-sharing

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