We are anonymous, we are legion

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

Kapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:45:43Z

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.

This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”

Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to Mint.

"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.

Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."

Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that Rule 3(2) which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from Section 66A of the IT Act, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.

Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.

"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate Apar Gupta in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.

Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."

Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”

To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”

Jaitley in-perspective

Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory” not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content, could be misused, according to Times of India.

IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".

Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to PTI.

He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.

Draconian Censorious Rules

Legally India reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.

The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.

Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.

Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression.

CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of “over-complying” intermediaries who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).

"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:19:38Z

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

This article by Preetika Rana published in the Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

The websites were blocked by private telecom operators following a ruling by Chennai’s High Court in March.

The story began when Chennai-based Copyrights Labs, a firm specializing in copyright infringement, petitioned the High Court to take pre-emptive action against people who might illegally upload two Tamil-language films: "3" and "Dammu."

The court ruled that Internet service providers, or ISPs, could block video-sharing sites where those films were illegally available.

The court named 15 prominent ISPs who were covered by the order.

But the court did not name any particular video-sharing websites to be taken down. And it remains unclear if any of those affected this week even carried the two films in question.

Two major Indian ISPs, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications, blocked content sharing websites including U.S.-based Vimeo and France-based Dailymotion and Pastebin.

They cited the court order as a reason but without proof the sites were carrying the movies. Other ISPs named in the court order did not attempt to block any websites.

The two telecom giants offered little further clarity on why these websites were blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders,” Bharti Airtel said in a statement.

Reliance Communication’s statement said: "Under Section 79 of the IT Act, an ISP has to adhere to any copyright infringement notice and court orders."

Responding to reports of the ban, Harish Ram, chief executive of Copyrights Labs said Thursday: "We have been fighting for this for long and it seems the ISPs are finally responding."

By Friday, the ISPs had restored services for Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin, although some users still reported access problems.

It is still unclear why the March order came into effect only now or why Reliance and Airtel decied to unblock the websites. The telecom firms did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Experts attacked ISPs for clamping down on free speech on the web.

"Why and how did telecom giants target select websites," said Pranesh Prakash, a program manager at Bangalore based-Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit group advocating free speech on the web. He pointed out that the High Court did not spell out the names of websites that should be blocked.

"Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web," he said. "Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?"

Bhupendra Kainthola, a spokesman for the telecom ministry, noted that the "government or the telecom ministry had nothing to do with the high court ruling.” When asked why the ministry did not intervene, Mr. Kainthola responded: “What can we do? If an order has been passed, we have to follow it… that is the law of the land."

The move comes only a few months after the central government issued an official sanction to prosecute internet giants Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that they host "blasphemous" content on their websites. A criminal case against the two companies is ongoing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban

Taming the Web, are we?

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:01:28Z

Two decades after its advent changed our lives, the world wide web - as we know it - faces a grave threat. Not from governments alone, but also from tech companies seeking to play gatekeepers.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article by Javed Anwer published in the Economic Times on May 13, 2012

The /b/ section at www.4chan.org is so extreme in nature that even web veterans squirm at the thought of going through it. Anyone can post virtually any picture here. Anonymously. It doesn't matter if the pictures are obscene , graphic or gory.

Yet, 4Chan, which was started by a 15-year-old in 2003, is an integral part of the world wide web. The large community at 4Chan mirrors the virtual world - lawless and anarchic in the traditional sense, highly innovative, funny and sometimes disturbing. Barry Newstead, chief global development officer of Wikimedia that manages Wikipedia, puts it succinctly. "The internet has been giving ordinary people the voice and the ability to contribute content and ideas and opinions. Sometimes we use it to create pictures of funny cats and sometimes it's the world's largest encyclopedia ," he says.

Until recently, it seems governments just noticed the funny cats. They left the web to its own devices. At the same time, the egalitarian ethos on which the web was founded - Tim Berners-Lee developed it and gave it away for free - kept realworld barriers, which corporations and people often put around their environment, away from it. In 2012, it looks like the honeymoon is over.

'Civilizing' the Net

Perhaps the problem is that, for all its perceived flaws, the internet has worked wonderfully well."Too well," says Jeff Jarvis, author of 'Public Parts' , a book on internet culture. It has allowed people to create Google, Facebook, Hotmail, WikiLeaks, Wikipedia and thousands of other websites and services that have changed lives. Last year Jarvis was in Paris, participating in e-G 8 called by then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. He heard the Frenchman's plans to"civilize" the web. "Nobody should forget governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies," said Sarkozy.

His sentiments are shared by politicians across the world, including in India. Just three days ago, Congress MP Shantaram Naik, aghast at the "filthy" comments on a website, said in the Rajya Sabha that the internet needs to be "purified" . Different politicians and governments have different reasons. But regulation is growing. In the last few years, governments across the world have proposed or enacted laws (see box) that aim to "civilize" the web.

Why the urgency? Is the internet broken? Jarvis says it is not. "The net is operating no differently today than it was a decade ago. But we see so many efforts to fix it - to regulate it under the cloak of privacy, piracy, decency, security, and even civility," he says. "I believe legacy institutions, including governments, are waking up to the extent of the net's disruptive force... they are trying to control the net and govern the change it causes."

Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, says that in the last two years governments have doubled their efforts to control the web. "During the revolutions in Arab countries last year, protesters mobilized themselves through Twitter and Facebook. Then there are Wikileaks and Anonymous. This has made governments and politicians jittery," says Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/taming-the-web

Cordon tightens: Rajya Sabha nod to harsh IT rules

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:49:10Z

Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted in this article by Anil Sharma & Aishhwariya Subramanian published in Daily News & Analysis on May 18, 2012.

The draconian intermediaries rules of the Information Technology Act that allows the government to aggressively police the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will continue for some more time as a motion to annul them in the Rajya Sabha was defeated by the treasury benches on Thursday.

The rules that came into effect last year almost became annulled after a determined push from MPs cutting across party lines in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. However, the government barely managed to scrape through but union communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal conceded that there were problems and promised to call for a meeting to address the concerns of the MPs.

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member from Kerala P Rajeeve had moved a statutory motion demanding that these rules be annulled as they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Rajeeve received enthusiastic support from the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, who made a detailed argument against the existing rules. An impressed Jaitley commended Rajeeve for involving Parliament in the process of framing the rules. Jaitley also slammed the government for trying to police the internet but stressed that like other media this could not be controlled. "In fact, if the internet had been there at that time even the Emergency would have been a fiasco," he said.

The members were keen that the motion be put to vote and the numbers in the Rajya Sabha were loaded against the government.

However, responding to Jaitley's suggestion, Sibal assured the house that the concerns of the members would be taken on board. "I request the members to write to me with their specific suggestions. I will take up the matter at a joint meeting with all the stakeholders and arrive at a solution," he said.

This pacified the members and the government ducked a potentially embarrassing situation.

Expressing his dissatisfaction with the minister's reply, Rajeeve stressed that just as there is a provision for withdrawing objectionable content from the internet within 36 hours, there should be scope for restoring it if the original author can justify it.

The debate was keenly followed by free speech activists who have been lobbying for months to get these draconian rules annulled. The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also conducted a major sting operation to prove how absurd these rules are. They sent several fake "take-down notices" to several companies hosting internet sites. The companies went ahead and shut down some blogs and web sites without even bothering to check if the complaints had any merit.

"The trouble with Indian government's proposal to address issues such as network neutrality, privacy and freedom of expression, is top-down. Unlike other countries where internet policies have always been developed with consultation with other stakeholders, here the government imposes its will," said Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS.

Netizens are concerned about India's bad track record when it comes to censorship and a policy for the internet. Delhi-based Anja Kovacks, from the Internet Democracy Project, feels that many of the concerns voiced by Indian government are justified. "Undoubtedly the internet presents a range of new challenges, in India as elsewhere, that need to be addressed. Many of the concerns the Indian government expresses are therefore also completely justified. But the ways in which it seeks to tackle these problems are not appropriate for a democratic nation." Kovacks believes that the current policy will impair the freedom of speech.

Ironically, while the UPA government is busy clamping down on domestic opinion, it is planning to take a far more liberal stand at an upcoming international conference on running the internet in Geneva later this year. "It is an ironical situation where India is not following domestically what it is proposing internationally," said Pranesh Prakash of CIS.

With the government holding on to its draconian rules, citizens using social networks like Twitter and Facebook or writing blogs will now have to worry about big brother watching over their shoulders.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rajya-sabha-nod-to-harsh-it-rules

Empires: Individuals in Search of Society

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:35:46Z

In their 2000 bestseller Empire, Michael Hardt and Toni Negri announced a new international condition no longer built on the imperialist model of the superpowers of old but on the new condition of globalization. This new and emerging networked world held with it the opportunity for politics to bring forward a 21st century of interconnectedness, openness and a shared sense of planetary responsibility.

This article by Marc Lafia was published in Huffington Post on May 18, 2012

What we've discovered since is that the new empire still plays by the games of the old empires: of nation states, of divisiveness, of scarcity, of might, control and fear, even while we have never had such enormous abundance and innovation.

It is this paradox that Empires -- our documentary film and online project, currently raising funds through Kickstarter -- sets out to unravel. The title works on multiple levels. It says that the nationalist empires are back. It also suggests that the empires of law, money, science, speed, nation states, and food are, in fact, complex networks that are inter-related and interdependent.

It is said that you know there is a network when you're excluded from it.

To be included is to have a voice, to participate, to have agency. These things drive the histories of political and philosophical thought. They are not abstract concepts but the very real struggles of networked relations, of powers, peoples, flows of energies and technologies.

How these networks work and how they interact is what Empires sets out to explicate.

We've sat down with an extraordinary group of historians, scientists, network technologists, sociologists, political organizers and artists to construct a conversation that describes the forces that shape our contemporary world. The list includes Manuel Delanda, Saskia Sassen, Florian Cramer, Natalie Jeremijenko, Kazys Varnelis, Geert Lovink, Alex Galloway, Michael Hardt, Anthony Pagden, Cathy Davidson, Greg Lindsay, Nishant Shah, James Delbourgo, Jon Protevi, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, and soon Paul D. Miller and Douglas Rushkoff.

What we've heard is that our managerial and government elites are dysfunctional and that the new order of things is every man for himself, that things find their own order, from the ground up. Our desires are expressed in our purchasing power. Money is how we vote and the market will continually adjust to accommodate the desires we express. We can all be winners using the network effects to scale up to success, a success each of us has agency to produce. There are no larger structures to trump agency. If you can make it you will make it.

In this ethos of the elevation of our uniqueness to the exclusion of our commonalities, we have become blind to any possible collective power. We now, in the West, are a society of individuals in search of society.

With reluctance today to accept such universalisms as global citizenship, rights to a living wage, to mobility, to social ownership of information channels and planetary resources, we are left with a notion that society, like nature, will be chaotic and disruptive, and that through this new 'natural law' of volatility, of self organization, a new politics will emerge and find its shape.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/individuals-in-search-of-society

We are anonymous, we are legion

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

Kapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs

Jaitley in-perspective

Draconian Censorious Rules

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship

Taming the Web, are we?

'Civilizing' the Net

Cordon tightens: Rajya Sabha nod to harsh IT rules

Empires: Individuals in Search of Society