We are anonymous, we are legion

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

John Doe order in Creative Commercials Media & Entertainment Limited v.BSNL (movie Dhammu)

Jai Anand — 2012-05-26T08:30:11Z

This is the case filed by Creative Commercials Media & Entertainment Ltd, producers of movie 'dhammu' against BSNL and other ISP's restraining them from infringing their copyrights and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

C.S. No. 294of 2012

M/s. Creative Commercials Media & Entertainment Ltd. Plaintiff

-Vs-

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and 44 others Defendants

Ashok Kumar,

Unknown Person,

India.

Defendant Nos. 39 to 44

The plaintiff above named have instituted the above suit for permanent injunction restraining various unknown persons from infringing their copyright in the cinematograph film / motion picture "DHAMMU" by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing camcording or communicating or allowing others to communicate or make 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 plaintiff's movie "DHAMMU" 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 "DHAMMU" 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 and for such other consequential reliefs.

The application being O.A. No. 358 of 2012 for interim injunction in respect of infringement of copyright came up for hearing on 25th April 2012 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Subbiah and the Hon'ble Judge was pleased to grant interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice to you returnable by 7th June 2012.

Please take notice that the obove matter will bo listed for further hearing on 7th June 2012 or soon thereafter and make it convenient to appear before the court either personally or through counsel as and when the matter is listed for hearing, failing which the matter will be heard and decided in your absence.

M/s. A.A. MOHAN, BRINDA MOHAN, N. KARTHIKEYAN, S. DIWAKAR & ARUN C. MOHAN

Counsel for Plaintiff

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-creative-commercials-v.-bsnl-movie-dhammu

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T04:17:46Z

Following the highly successful Internet at Liberty 2010, activists and experts from around the world converged on May 23-24 to explore the most pressing dilemmas and exciting opportunities around free expression in the digital age.

The Internet as a global, free, and open resource, is constantly developing. Over the past year we have seen how the Internet can shift power, broaden scope, and accelerate political and economic change. Simultaneously, governments and multinational companies shape what is possible online. Today, more than any time in history, technological and political forces are colliding to draw lines about how the Internet functions.

Internet at Liberty 2012, sponsored by Google, brought together global activists and representatives of academic centers, corporations, governments, the media and NGOs. The conference explored ways to expand the free flow of information online. Look for debates about today's most pressing internet freedom issues, and action-oriented workshops.

Agenda

= streamed live on the CitizenTube YouTube channel at youtube.com/citizentube

May 23, 2012

8:30 a.m.	Registration & Breakfast
9:30 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.	Welcome & Introduction
10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.	Plenary I Debate 1: Should laws and regulations that affect the Internet favor individuals over the state? Speakers: John Kampfner - Author and historian Noomane Fehri - Tunisian National Constitutional Assembly Renata Avila - Lawyer and Advocate for Transparency, Global Voices Stewart Baker - Former Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security Susan Glasser - Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy
11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m	Break
11:45 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.	Break-out Discussions
1.00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.	Lunch
2:15 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.	Workshop I Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
3:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.	Afternoon Break Research Displays
4:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.	Plenary II Debate 2: Is the Internet--and global communication among citizens--best served by today's organic mix of governing forces, or do we need a more centralized, global system? Speaker: Ben Wagner - European University Institute Gary Fowlie - Head, ITU Liaison Office to the United Nations Riz Khan (Moderator) - Reporter, Al Jazeera English
5:45 p.m. - 7.00 p.m.	Reception Research Displays
7.00 p.m.	Dinner Keynote Panel Speaker: Riz Khan - International Journalist, Television Host, Author at Al Jazeera English Sana Saleem Chiranuch “Jiew” Premchaiporn

See the original agenda in Google News

May 24, 2012

8:30 a.m. - 9.00 a.m	Registration & Breakfast
9.00 a.m. - 10.00 a.m.	Plenary III Research Lightning Round Speaker: Guy Berger, Mapping Digital Media Around the World Jeffrey Ghannam, Digital Media After the Arab Spring Katrin Verclas, Mobile Monitor Nadim Kobeissi, Securing Private Networks with Cryptocat Lucas Dixon, DDOS Protection Sarah Kendzior, The Impact of Social Media in Azerbaijan Claudio Ruiz, Freedom of Expression in Chile Christopher Fabian, uReport: UNICEF Innovations Nicklas Lunblad, Internet Freedom as Economics Issue Zeynep Tufekci
10.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.	Morning Break Research Displays
11.00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.	Workshop II Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social Media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
	Lunch
1.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m.	Plenary IV Debate 3: In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom? Speaker: Sunil Abraham - Centre for Internet and Society Cynthia Wong - Center for Democracy and Technology Mohamed El Dahshan - writer, journalist Dunja Mijatović - OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Judy Woodruff (Moderator) - Senior Correspondent, PBS Newshour
3.00 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.	Closing Session

See the original agenda in Google News

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-at-liberty-2012

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T15:38:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.
Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.
Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.
Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.
Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?
Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?
For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?*

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.

Please note: Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 27, 2012	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 18, 2012	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
August 2012	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
September 2012	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2012	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship

Rajeev Chandrasekhar Urges PM To Withdraw India’s Proposal For UN Committee On Internet-Policy

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T12:07:25Z

Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar has written a letter to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to withdraw India’s proposal to UN seeking governance of Internet control.

Anupam Saxena's blog post was published in Medianama on May 16, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.

In his letter, Chandresekhar has said that India’s proposal for setting up a United Nation Committee for Internet-Related Policies (UN CRP) is against the open, democratic, inclusive and unhindered growth of the internet, and harms India’s reputation.

He has also said that the proposal was submitted without any public consultation involving stakeholder groups, members of the civil society, private sector, technical and academic communities and others, since it represents their interests and would change their role completely, if accepted. He has pointed out that the internet was not built by governments and should not be regulated by them, and that there was no reason to change what is currently free, open and working well. He has said that the proposal doesn’t explain the reasons for the shift in the government’s stand.

Chandresekhar has expressed concern over the government’s proposal of establishing a body comprising of 50 politicians/ bureaucrats controlling the internet, while multi-stake holders move to an advisory role. He has called for the strengthening of the multi-stakeholder model, instead of letting a government body with the UN logo taking charge.

While we’re in agreement that there should be some focus on multi-stakeholder-ism, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, during an interview with MediaNama had shed some light on how the proposal might actually change the shape of things, and dilute the role of the US in internet governance. He had cited the examples of laws proposed in the House and the Senate in the US, including the ones allowing DNS Seizures, which could affect the whole world. So, these might not be as evil as they’re being perceived to be.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/withdraw-india-proposal-for-un-committee-on-internet-policy

MPs oppose curbs on internet; Sibal promises discussions

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T10:25:35Z

With MPs raising concerns over open-ended interpretations of restrictive terms in the rules seeking to regulate social media and internet, the government promised to evolve a consensus on points of contention.

Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article published by the Times of India on May 18, 2012

Telecom minister Kapil Sibal's assurance came at the end of an engrossing debate in Rajya Sabha on a motion moved by CPM MP P Rajeeve who said the rules violated freedom of expression and free speech.

He found support from leader of opposition Arun Jaitley who picked several examples to point out that terms or descriptions like "harmful", "blasphemous" and "defamatory" did not lend themselves to precise legal definitions.

Jaitley said what the government may find defamatory may not be seen in similar light by its critics. He also pointed to the difficulties of controlling technology and asked if it was desirable to do so.

Assuring MPs who sought the annulment of 'rules' which are aimed at regulating internet content, Sibal said, "My assurance to the House is that I will request the MPs to write letters to me objecting to any specific words. I will then call a meeting of the members as well as the industry and all stakeholders. We will have a discussion and whatever consensus emerges, we will implement it."

The move to put rules in place flows from the government's annoyance with what it sees as scurrilous and disrespectful comments about senior Congress leaders. It had suggested pre-screening of content which service providers were reluctant to consider.

The motion for annulling the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011 was, however, defeated by a voice vote. Justifying the rules, the minister said "these are sensitive issues" as most internet companies were registered abroad and not subjected to Indian laws.

TOI was first to report about the new rules that put a lot of the onus on intermediaries like internet service providers, Facebook and Twitter, to manage and monitor content produced by their users. Web activists believe the IT rules are open to arbitrary interpretation and can be misused to silence freedom of speech.

Google, which participated in the public consultative process before the rules were framed, had told TOI, "If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information."

Moving the motion, Rajeeve said, "I am not against any regulation on internet but I am against any control on internet... In control, there is no freedom... These rules attempt to control internet and curtail the freedom of expression."

Complimenting the CPM member, Jaitley said, "I think he (Rajeeve) deserves a compliment for educating us on this rule that Parliament has a supervisory control as far as subordinate legislations are concerned, and, if need be, we can express our vote of disapproval to the subordinate legislations."

MPs felt the government should consider a regime where offensive content can be removed immediately after being posted rather than trying to sieve it out.

Noting that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defy technology and that the days of withholding information have gone, Jaitley urged the minister to "reconsider the language of restraints" to prevent its misuse. He pointed to certain words - harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory - used in the rules, explaining how these could be interpreted/misinterpreted at any stage.

The MPs did note that the internet had a risk of inciting hate speech and frenzy in society and therefore it needed to be restrained but the device could be swift identification of objectionable content.

Pranesh Prakash of Centre for Internet and Society, an organization that has been advocating withdrawal of the rules, said he was sad with the outcome in Rajya Sabha. "The IT minister has promised to hold consultations but the ideal way to do so would have been to scrap the rules and start from scratch," he said.

"It's not only about language in these rules. There is a problem with provisions like the one that empowers intermediaries to remove content without notifying the user who had uploaded the content or giving users a chance to explain themselves."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mps-oppose-curbs-on-internet

We are anonymous, we are legion

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)

John Doe order in Creative Commercials Media & Entertainment Limited v.BSNL (movie Dhammu)

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

Agenda

Registration & Breakfast

Welcome & Introduction

Plenary I

Break

Break-out Discussions

Lunch

Workshop I

Afternoon Break

Plenary II

Reception

Dinner

Plenary III

Workshop II

Lunch

Plenary IV

Closing Session

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

Fellowship Focus Areas

Frequently Asked Questions

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?*

What documentation is required from students?

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

Rajeev Chandrasekhar Urges PM To Withdraw India’s Proposal For UN Committee On Internet-Policy

MPs oppose curbs on internet; Sibal promises discussions