The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Google's 'Transparency Report' sketchy, inconclusive: Government
https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive
<b>Google calls it the 'Transparency Report', but as far as Indian authorities are concerned, it is anything but. The world's largest Internet company this week published its latest half-yearly findings on government requests for access to personal information, showing that both the number of requests and the rate of denials have risen. The data, according to the world's largest democracy, are too sketchy for any clear conclusions to be drawn.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Indu Nandakumar was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-11-17/news/35170763_1_transparency-report-google-data-requests">published in the Economic Times</a> on November 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The skirmish is happening during a year in which relations between the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Indian%20government">Indian government</a> and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Internet%20companies">Internet companies</a> deteriorated, with demands to take down fake <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Twitter">Twitter</a> handles and web pages that the former said threatened the security of regional and religious minorities.</p>
<div dir="LTR" id="mod-a-body-after-first-para" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The sum and substance of the 'Transparency Report' is that government authorities have increased the number of requests they make for personal information of user accounts on Google-owned services, including <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/YouTube">YouTube</a> and Gmail. Google, on the other hand, has been denying the requests at a higher rate since it first started publishing the half-yearly report in 2010.</p>
<p>"If we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it. We may refuse to remove content or produce information, or try to narrow the request in some cases if it was not specific enough," a Google spokesman told ET. In an emailed statement, Google said it respects the legal process in India, but is keen to meet both the letter and spirit of the law before complying.</p>
<p>According to Google, in the first half of 2012, various arms of the Indian government made 2,319 requests but Google "partially or fully" complied with only 64% of those, compared with 70% in the same period in 2011 and nearly 80% in 2010. The government requests also sought information about 3,467 user accounts.</p>
<p>The department of information technology deflected requests for comment to the office of Gulshan Rai, director of India's <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Cyber%20Emergency%20Response%20Team">Cyber Emergency Response Team</a>.</p>
<p><b>India Big Market for Google</b></p>
<p>Rai said Google must "transparently" share the data pertaining to requests received by them. "It's Google data, which cannot be accessed by anybody else," he said. "We have been speaking to Google for over a year now to streamline this process and bring in more transparency, but they never came around."</p>
<p>What this could mean is that the government does not have a central repository of all requests for personal information by Indian authorities. So, by depending solely on Google, the government may be leaving itself in a position where it cannot challenge the authenticity of information in the Internet company's report. India's a significant market for Google, which has over 100 million users here with an over 95% market share of the Internet search market, according to research firm StatCounter. Google employs nearly 1,535 engineers in India. In August, the department of electronics & information technology sought 412 web pages hosted on Google to be blocked in connection with the controversial movie "Innocence of Muslims" as well as the mass exodus to the North-East states following riots in Assam.</p>
<p>"Google invariably tends to be more subjective on the adequacy of the request. Earlier they were more inclined to accept government requests. Now with the increase in the number of requests, especially since the 26/11 attacks, there is an exercise to examine the adequacy," said Pawan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer specialising in <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/cyber%20law">cyber law</a>.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive'>https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2012-11-22T07:39:05ZNews ItemIndian government at second position after U.S.A for demanding user data from Google
https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google
<b>The Indian government has secured 2nd position in the list of the governments demanding for Web user information. It is behind only from the United States government.</b>
<hr />
<p>This blog entry was <a class="external-link" href="http://whdi-reviews.com/2012/11/indian-government-at-second-position-after-u-s-a-for-demanding-user-data-from-google/">published in WHDI Reviews</a> on November 22, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p>This fact came to light in the ‘Transparency Report’ published by web services major. The report covers the time period from January to June in the present year. During this time period, the Govt. of India has asked Google for user information 2,319 times over 3,647 user accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This has been done by the way of court orders and requests made by police. Google has allowed the disclosure of the information sometimes partially and sometimes completely. The U.S.A government on the other hand requested for more information 7,969 requests over 16,281 accounts. The compliance rate by Google to Indian and U.S requests was 64% and 90% respectively. The report gives details about two categories of interactions: firstly to divulge data and secondly to pull down content. India now ranks 7th in the list of countries which had made requests to pull down data. India could have achieved even a better rank but owing to the lack of any constitutional power which backs its action, it has to be satisfied with the seventh position. According to Pranesh, (policy director with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society) these requests for pulling down data are an attempt made by the government so that its criticism is not able to reach a wide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google (which is banned in China) supports the cause of disclosure of the information related to governments. The other net service providers which put out similar transparency reports are twitter, Linkedin and Cloud storage service Dropbox. These content pull down request made by the government is not healthy for a democratic country like India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google'>https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2012-11-30T05:05:01ZNews ItemThe Case of Whatsapp Group Admins
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Censorship laws in India have now roped in group administrators of chat groups on instant messaging platforms such as Whatsapp (<i>group admin(s)</i>) for allegedly objectionable content that was posted by other users of these chat groups. Several incidents<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a> were reported this year where group admins were arrested in different parts of the country for allowing content that was allegedly objectionable under law. A few reports mentioned that these arrests were made under Section 153A<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a> read with Section 34<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> of the Indian Penal Code (<i>IPC</i>) and Section 67<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> of the Information Technology Act (<i>IT Act</i>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Targeting of a group admin for content posted by other members of a chat group has raised concerns about how this liability is imputed. Whether a group admin should be considered an intermediary under Section 2 (w) of the IT Act? If yes, whether a group admin would be protected from such liability?</span></p>
<h3><strong>Group admin as an intermediary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whatsapp is an instant messaging platform which can be used for mass communication by opting to create a chat group. A chat group is a feature on Whatsapp that allows joint participation of Whatsapp users. The number of Whatsapp users on a single chat group can be up to 100. Every chat group has one or more group admins who control participation in the group by deleting or adding people. <a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a> It is imperative that we understand that by choosing to create a chat group on Whatsapp whether a group admin can become liable for content posted by other members of the chat group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Section 34 of the IPC provides that when a number of persons engage in a criminal act with a common intention, each person is made liable as if he alone did the act. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It is interesting to note that group admins have been arrested under Section 153A on the ground that a group admin and a member posting content on a chat group that is actionable under this provision have common intention to post such content on the group. But would this hold true when for instance, a group admin creates a chat group for posting lawful content (say, for matchmaking purposes) and a member of the chat group posts content which is actionable under law (say, posting a video abusing Dalit women)? Common intention can be established by direct evidence or inferred from conduct or surrounding circumstances or from any incriminating facts.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We need to understand whether common intention can be established in case of a user merely acting as a group admin. For this purpose it is necessary to see how a group admin contributes to a chat group and whether he acts as an intermediary.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We know that parameters for determining an intermediary differ across jurisdictions and most global organisations have categorised them based on their role or technical functions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a><span> Section 2 (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (</span><i>IT Act</i><span>) defines an intermediary as </span><i>any person, who on behalf of another person, receives, stores or transmits messages or provides any service with respect to that message</i><span> </span><i>and includes the telecom services providers, network providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafés</i><span>. Does a group admin receive, store or transmit messages on behalf of group participants or provide any service with respect to messages of group participants or falls in any category mentioned in the definition? Whatsapp does not allow a group admin to receive, or store on behalf of another participant on a chat group. Every group member independently controls his posts on the group. However, a group admin helps in transmitting messages of another participant to the group by allowing the participant to be a part of the group thus effectively providing service in respect of messages. A group admin therefore, should be considered an intermediary. However his contribution to the chat group is limited to allowing participation but this is discussed in further detail in the section below.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in a 2010 report</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a><span>, an internet intermediary brings together or facilitates transactions between third parties on the Internet. It gives access to, hosts, transmits and indexes content, products and services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide Internet-based services to third parties. A Whatsapp chat group allows people who are not on your list to interact with you if they are on the group admins’ contact list. In facilitating this interaction, according to the OECD definition, a group admin may be considered an intermediary.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Liability as an intermediary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 79 (1) of the IT Act protects an intermediary from any liability under any law in force (for instance, liability under Section 153A pursuant to the rule laid down in Section 34 of IPC) if an intermediary fulfils certain conditions laid down therein. An intermediary is required to carry out certain due diligence obligations laid down in Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (<i>Rules</i>). These obligations include monitoring content that infringes intellectual property, threatens national security or public order, or is obscene or defamatory or violates any law in force (Rule 3(2)).<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> An intermediary is liable for publishing or hosting such user generated content, however, as mentioned earlier, this liability is conditional. Section 79 of IT Act states that an intermediary would be liable only if it initiates transmission, selects receiver of the transmission and selects or modifies information contained in the transmission that falls under any category mentioned in Rule 3 (2) of the Rules. While we know that a group admin has the ability to facilitate sharing of information and select receivers of such information, he has no direct editorial control over the information shared. Group admins can only remove members but cannot remove or modify the content posted by members of the chat group. An intermediary is liable in the event it fails to comply with due diligence obligations laid down under rule 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Rules however, since a group admin lacks the authority to initiate transmission himself and control content, he can’t comply with these obligations. Therefore, a group admin would be protected from any liability arising out of third party/user generated content on his group pursuant to Section 79 of the IT Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is however relevant to note whether the ability of a group admin to remove participants amounts to an indirect form of editorial control.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Other pertinent observations</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In several reports<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> there have been discussions about how holding a group admin liable makes the process convenient as it is difficult to locate all the users of a particular group. This reasoning may not be correct as the Whatsapp policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a> makes it mandatory for a prospective user to provide his mobile number in order to use the platform and no additional information is collected from group admins which may justify why group admins are targeted. Investigation agencies can access mobile numbers of Whatsapp users and gain more information from telecom companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is also interesting to note that the group admins were arrested after a user or someone familiar to a user filed a complaint with the police about content being objectionable or hurtful. Earlier this year, the apex court had ruled in the case of </span><i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</i><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a><span> that an intermediary needed a court order or a government notification for taking down information. With actions taken against group admins on mere complaints filed by anyone, it is clear that the law enforcement officials have been overriding the mandate of the court.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Conclusion</strong></h3>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="text-align: justify; ">According to a study conducted by a global research consultancy, TNS Global, around 38 % of internet users in India use instant messaging applications such as Snapchat and Whatsapp on a daily basis, Whatsapp being the most widely used application. These figures indicate the scale of impact that arrests of group admins may have on our daily communication.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is noteworthy that categorising a group admin as an intermediary would effectively make the Rules applicable to all Whatsapp users intending to create groups and make it difficult to enforce and would perhaps blur the distinction between users and intermediaries.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The critical question however is whether a chat group is considered a part of the bundle of services that Whatsapp offers to its users and not as an independent platform that makes a group admin a separate entity. Also, would it be correct to draw comparison of a Whatsapp group chat with a conference call on Skype or sharing a Google document with edit rights to understand the domain in which censorship laws are penetrating today?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Valuable contribution by Pranesh Prakash and Geetha Hariharan</i></p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> <a href="http://www.nagpurtoday.in/whatsapp-admin-held-for-hurting-religious-sentiment/06250951">http://www.nagpurtoday.in/whatsapp-admin-held-for-hurting-religious-sentiment/06250951</a> ; <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/raipur-news/whatsapp-group-admin-arrested-for-spreading-obscene-video-of-mahatma-gandhi-1440835156.html">http://www.catchnews.com/raipur-news/whatsapp-group-admin-arrested-for-spreading-obscene-video-of-mahatma-gandhi-1440835156.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/article/india-news/whatsapp-group-admin-along-with-3-members-arrested-for-objectionable-content/147887/">http://www.financialexpress.com/article/india-news/whatsapp-group-admin-along-with-3-members-arrested-for-objectionable-content/147887/</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Section 153A. “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.— (1) Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities…” or 2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Section 67 Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/21073373</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf</a>; <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/44949023.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Rule 3(2) (b) of the Rules</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/if-you-are-a-whatsapp-group-admin-better-be-careful/article7531350.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/if-you-are-a-whatsapp-group-admin-better-be-careful/article7531350.ece</a>; http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Social-Media-Administrator-You-Could-Land-in-Trouble/2015/10/10/article3071815.ece; <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/10/223-whatsapp-group-admin-arrest/">http://www.medianama.com/2015/10/223-whatsapp-group-admin-arrest/</a>; <a href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/whatsapp-group-admin-you-are-intermediary-and-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-know-35031">http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/whatsapp-group-admin-you-are-intermediary-and-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-know-35031</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf</p>
<div>
<div id="ftn12"></div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins</a>
</p>
No publisherJapreet GrewalIT ActIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2015-12-08T10:25:42ZBlog EntryReport on CIS' Workshop at the IGF:'An Evidence Based Framework for Intermediary Liability'
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf
<b>An evidence based framework for intermediary liability' was organised to present evidence and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition, function and responsibilities of intermediaries across jurisdictions.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion from the workshop will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability, consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Article 19 (UK) and Centre for Internet and Society (India) have come together towards the development of best practices and principles related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. The workshop discussion will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards. The session was hosted by Centre for Internet and Society (India) and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford (USA) and attended by 7 speakers and 40 participants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst EFF kicked off the workshop highlighting the need to develop a liability framework for intermediaries that is derived out of an understanding of their different functions, their role within the economy and their impact on human rights. He went on to structure the discussion which would follow to focus on ongoing projects and examples that highlight central issues related to gathering and presenting evidence to inform the policy space.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Martin Husovec from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, began his presentation, tracking the development of safe harbour frameworks within social contract theory. Opining that safe harbour was created as a balancing mechanism between a return of investments of the right holders and public interest for Internet as a public space, he introduced emerging claims that technological advancement have altered this equilibrium. Citing injunctions and private lawsuits as instruments, often used against law abiding intermediaries, he pointed to the problem within existing liability frameoworks, where even intermediaries, who diligently deal with illegitimate content on their services, can be still subject to a forced cooperation to the benefit of right holders. He added that for liability frameworks to be effective, they must keep pace with advances in technology and are fair to right holders and the public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He also pointed that in any liability framework because the ‘law’ that prescribes an interference, must be always sufficiently clear and foreseeable, as to both the meaning and nature of the applicable measures, so it sufficiently outlines the scope and manner of exercise of the power of interference in the exercise of the rights guaranteed. He illustrated this with the example of the German Federal Supreme Court attempts with Wi-Fi policy-making in 2010. He also raised issues of costs of uncertainty in seeking courts as the only means to balance rights as they often, do not have the necessary information. Similarly, society also does not benefit from open ended accountability of intermediaries and called for a balanced approach to regulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need for consistency in liability regimes across jurisdictions, was raised by Giancarlo Frosio, Intermediary Liability Fellow at Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society. He introduced the World Intermediary Liability Map, a project mapping legislation and case law across 70 countries towards creating a repository of information that informs policymaking and helps create accountability. Highlighting key takeaways from his research, he stressed the necessity of having clear definitions in the field of intermediary liability and the need to develop taxonomy of issues to deepen our understanding of the issues at stake towards an understanding of type of liability appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nicolo Zingales, Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University highlighted the need for due process and safeguards for human rights and called for more user involvement in systems that are in place in different countries to respond to requests of takedown. Presenting his research findings, he pointed to the imbalance in the way notice and takedown regimes are structured, where content is taken down presumptively, but the possibility of restoring user content is provided only at a subsequent stage or not at all in many cases. He cited several examples of enhancing user participation in liability mechanisms including notice and notice, strict litigation sanction inferring the knowledge that the content might have been legal and shifting the presumption in favor of the users and the reverse notice and takedown procedure. He also raised the important question, if multistakeholder cooperation is sufficient or adequate to enable the users to have a say and enter as part of the social construct in this space? Reminding the participants of the failure of the multistakeholder agreement process regarding the cost for the filters in the UK, that would be imposed according to judicial procedure, he called for strengthening our efforts to enable users to get more involved in protecting their rights online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Gabrielle Guillemin from Article 19 presented her research on the types of intermediaries and models of liability in place across jurisdictions. Pointing to the problems associated with intermediaries having to monitor content and determine legality of content, she called for procedural safeguards and stressed the need to place the dispute back in the hands of users and content owners and the person who has written the content rather than the intermediary. She goes on to provide some useful and practically-grounded solutions to strengthen existing takedown mechanisms including, adding details to the notices, introducing fees in order to extend the number of claims that are made and defining procedure regards criminal content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elonnai Hickok introduced CIS' research to the UNESCO report Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries, comparing a range of liability models in different stages of development and provisions across jurisdictions. She argued for a liability framework that tackles procedural and regulatory uncertainty, lack of due process, lack of remedy and varying content criteria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Francisco Vera, Advocacy Director, Derechos Digitales from Chile raised issues related to mindful community policy-making expounding on Chile's implementation of intermediary liability obligation with the USA, the introduction of judicial oversight under Chilean legislation which led to US objection to Chile on grounds of not fulfilling their standards in terms of Internet property protection. He highlighted the tensions that arise in balancing the needs of the multiple communities and interests engaged over common resources and stressed the need for evidence in policy-making to balance the needs of rights holders and public interest. He stressed the need for evidence to inform policy-making and ensure it keeps pace with technological developments citing the example of the ongoing Transpacific Partnership Agreement negotiations that call for exporting provisions DMCA provisions to 11 countries even though there is no evidence of the success of the system for public interest. He concluded by cautioning against the development of frameworks that are or have the potential to be used as anti-competitive mechanisms that curtail innovation and therby do not serve public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malcolm Hutty associated with the European Internet Service Providers Association, Chair of the Intermediary Reliability Committee and London Internet Exchange brought in the intermediaries' perspective into the discussion. He argued for challenging the link between liability and forced cooperation, understated the problems arising from distinction without a difference and incentives built in within existing regimes. He raised issues arising from the expectancy on the part of those engaged in pre-emptive regulation of unwanted or undesirable content for intermediaries to automate content. Pointing to the increasing impact of intermediaries in our lives he underscored how exposing vast areas of people's lives to regulatory enforce, which enhances power of the state to implement public policy in the public interest and expect it to be executed, can have both positive and negative implications on issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He called out practices in regulatory regimes that focus on one size fits all solutions such as seeking automating filters on a massive scale and instead called for context and content specific solutions, that factor the commercial imperatives of intermediaries. He also addressed the economic consequences of liability frameworks to the industry including cost effectiveness of balancing rights, barriers to investments that arise in heavily regulated or new types of online services that are likely to be the targeted for specific enforcement measures and the long term costs of adapting old enforcement mechanisms that apply, while networks need to be updated to extend services to users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The workshop presented evidence of a variety of approaches and the issues that arise in applying those approaches to impose liability on intermediaries. Two choices emerged towards developing frameworks for enforcing responsibility on intermediaries. We could either rely on a traditional approach, essentially court-based and off-line mechanisms for regulating behaviour and disputes. The downside of this is it will be slow and costly to the public purse. In particular, we will lose a great deal of the opportunity to extend regulation much more deeply into people's lives so as to implement the public interest.<br /><br />Alternatively, we could rely on intermediaries to develop and automate systems to control our online behaviour. While this approach does not suffer from efficiency problems of the earlier approach it does lack, both in terms of hindering the developments of the Information Society, and potentially yielding up many of the traditionally expected protections under a free and liberal society. The right approach lies somewhere in the middle and development of International Principles for Intermediary Liability, announced at the end of the workshop, is a step closer to the developing a balanced framework for liability.</p>
<hr />
<p>See the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/174-igf-2014/transcripts/1968-2014-09-03-ws206-an-evidence-based-liability-policy-framework-room-5">transcript on IGF website</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance ForumInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-09-24T10:47:30ZBlog EntryA Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers. </b>
<div class="visualClear">In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Download the guide <a title="A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf">here</a>, and please feel free to comment below.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">You may also download a <a title="India-EU FTA TRIPS Comparison Chart" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/India-EU_FTA_Chart.odt">chart</a> comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Following is a summary of CIS' findings:</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">
<div class="visualClear">
<ul><li>India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.</li><li>The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.</li><li>The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.</li><li>India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.</li><li>The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.</li><li>In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.</li><li>An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.</li><li>The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers. </li><li>The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement</a>
</p>
No publishergloverDevelopmentConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeDiscussionEconomicsAnalysisTechnological Protection MeasuresIntermediary LiabilityinnovationIntellectual Property RightsPatentsPublications2011-08-30T13:06:03ZBlog EntryDon't Shoot the Messenger: Speech on Intermediary Liability at 22nd SCCR of WIPO
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intermediary-liability-wipo-speech
<b>This is a speech made by Pranesh Prakash at an side-event co-organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Internet Society on intermediary liability, to coincide with the release of Prof. Lillian Edwards's WIPO-commissioned report on 'Role and Responsibility of the Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright'.</b>
<p>Good afternoon. I've been asked to provide a user's perspective to the question of intermediary liability. "In what cases should an Internet intermediary—a messenger—be held liable for the doings of a third party?" is the broad question. I believe that in answering that question we can be guided by two simple principles: As long as intermediaries don't exercise direct editorial control, they should not be held liable; and as long as they don't instigate or encourage the illegal activity, they should not be held liable. In all other cases, attacking Internet intermediaries generally a sign of 'shooting the messenger'.
General intermediary liability and intermediary liability for copyright infringement share a common philosophical foundation, and so I will talk about general intermediary liability first.</p>
<p>While going about holding intermediaries liable, we must remember that what is at stake here is the fact that intermediaries are a necessary component of ensuring freedom of speech and self-expression on the World Wide Web. In this regard, we must keep in mind the joint declaration issued by <a href="http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=848&lID=1">four freedom of expression rapporteurs under the aegis of the Organization of American States on June 1, 2011</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Intermediary Liability</p>
<p>a. No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).</p>
<p>b. Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extra-judicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is useful to keep in mind what the kind of liability we affix on offline intermediaries: Would we hold a library responsible for unlawful material that a user has placed on its shelves without its encouragement?</p>
<p>Ensuring a balanced system of intermediary liability is also very important in preserving the forms of innovations we have seen online. Ensuring that intermediaries aren't always held liable for what third parties do is an essential component of encouraging new models of participation, such as Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has community-set standards with regard to copyright, obscenity, and other such issues, holding the Wikimedia Foundation (which has only around 30-40 people) itself responsible for what millions of users write on Wikipedia will hamper such new models of peer-production. This point, unfortunately, has not prevented the Wikimedia Foundation being sued a great number of times in India, a large percentage of which take the form of SLAPP ('strategic lawsuit against public participation') cases, since if the real intention had been to remove the offending content, editing Wikipedia is an easy enough way of achieving that.</p>
<p>While searching for these balanced solutions, we need to look beyond Europe, and look at how countries like Chile, Brazil, India and others are looking at these issues. Unfortunately, this being Geneva, most of the people I see represented in this room are from the developed world as are the examples we are discussing (France and Spain).</p>
<p>In India, for instance, the Internet Service Providers Association made it clear in 2006 (when there was an outcry over censorship of blogging platforms) that they do not want to be responsible for deciding whether something about which they have received a complaint is unlawful or not.</p>
<p>With respect to copyright and the Internet, while the Internet allows for copyright infringement to be conducted more easily, it also allows for copyright infringement to be spotted more easily. Earlier, if someone copied, it would be difficult to find out. Now that is not so. So, that balance is already ingrained, and while many in the industry focus on the fact of easier infringement and thus ask for increased legal protection, such increase in legal protection is not required since the same technological factors that enable increased infringement also enable increased ability to know about that infringement.</p>
<p>On the Internet, intermediaries sometimes engage in primary infringement due to the very nature of digital technology. In the digital sphere, everything is a copy. Thus, whenever you're working on a computer, copies of the copyrighted that show up on your screen are automatically copied to your computer's RAM. Whenever you download anything from the Internet, copies of it are created en route to your computer. (That is the main reason that exceptions in the copyright laws of most countries that allow you to re-sell a book you own don't apply to electronic books.) In such a case, intermediaries must be specially protected. </p>
<p>Additionally, online activities that we take for granted, for instance search technologies, violate the copyright law of most countries. For online search technology to be reasonably fast (instead of taking hours for each search), the searching has to be done on a copies (cache) of actual websites instead of the actual websites. For image searching, it would be unreasonable to expect search companies to take licences for all the images they allow you to search through. Yet, not doing so might violate the copyright laws of many countries. No one, or so one would think, would argue that search engines should be made illegal, but in some countries copyright law is being used to attack intermediaries.</p>
<p>As noted above, intermediaries are a necessary part of online free speech. Current methods of regulating copyright infringement by users via intermediaries online may well fall afoul of internationally accepted standards of human rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf">his recent report to the UN Human Rights Council</a> stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. </p>
<p>The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by discussions regarding a centralized “on/off” control over Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three-strikes law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With respect to graduated response, there is very little that one can add to Prof. Edwards's presentation. I would like to add one further suggestion that Prof. Ed Felten originally put forward as a 'modest proposal': Corporations which make or facilitate three wrongful accusations should face the same penalty as the users who are accused thrice.
The recent US strategy of seizing websites even before trial has been sufficiently criticised, so I shall not spend my time on it.</p>
<p>I still have not seen any good evidence as to why for other kinds of primary or secondary liability incurred by online intermediaries the procedure for offline copyright infringement should not apply, since they are usually crafted taking into account principles of natural justice.</p>
<p>The only 'international' and slightly troublesome issue that a resolution is needed to is that of problems relating to different jurisdiction’s laws applying on a single global network. However, this question is much larger one that of copyright and a copyright-specific solution cannot be found. Thus WIPO is not the right forum for the redress of that problem.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intermediary-liability-wipo-speech'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intermediary-liability-wipo-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntermediary LiabilityIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2012-06-01T15:01:08ZBlog EntryProblems Remain with Standing Committee's Report on Copyright Amendments
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments
<b>The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (under which ministry copyright falls) recently tabled their report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 before Parliament. There is much to be applauded in the report, including the progressive stand that the Committee has taken on the issue of providing access by persons with disabilities. This post, however, will concern itself with highlighting some of the problems with that report, along with some very important considerations that got missed out of the entire amendment debate.</b>
<h2 id="internal-source-marker_0.7517305351026772">Fair Dealings and Intermediary Liability</h2>
<p>The
amendments make a number of changes to s.52(1) of the Act, including to
the fair dealing provisions under s.52(1)(a), and introduction of two
new sub-sections (s.52(1)(b) and (c)) with s.52(1)(c) introducing a
modicum of protection for intermediaries involved in "transient and
incidental storage for the purpose of providing electronic links, access
or integration" (but only if the copyright holder has not expressed any
objections, and if the intermediary believes it to be non-infringing).
The provision allows the intermediary to ask the person complaining
against it to provide a court order within 14 days, since the
intermediary is in no position to determine the judicial question of
whether the copyright holder holds copyright and if the third party has
violated that copyright. However this provision was opposed tooth and
nail by the copyright holders' associations that dominated the
representations, while intermediaries and consumers remained woefully
under-represented before the Standing Committee.</p>
<p>Predictably,
the Standing Committee dealt a blow against intermediaries and
consumers by asking the government to review the "viability of the
duration of 14 days... by way of balancing the views of the stakeholders
as well as the legal requirement in the matter". They recommended a
relatively minor change of changing the phrase "transient and
incidental" to "transient or incidental". By doing this, they failed to
address the concerns raised by Yahoo India, Google India, and also
failed to acknowledge the submissions made by 22 civil society
organizations (available here:
http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information Provision</h2>
<p>The
amendments aim to bring about two new criminal provisions, and seek to
make circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks)
and alteration of rights management information (which are embedded into
digital files and signals) illegal.</p>
<p>The Standing Committee heard a number of organizations on technological protection measures, which <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment">we had argued</a>
are harmful as they a) cannot distinguish between fair dealing and
infringement, and b) are harmful even if a legal right to circumvent for
fair dealings is provided because the technological means to circumvent
doesn't necessarily exist. (Imagine a law that says that breaking a
lock using lock-breaking implements isn't a crime if it is done to enter
into your own house. Such a law doesn't help you if you can't get your
hands on the lock-breaking implements in the first place.) The Indian
Broadcasting Federation, the Business Software Alliance, and the Motion
Picture Association (which represents six studios, all American), the
Indian Music Industry, and the Indian Performing Right Society Limited
all felt that this provision did not go far enough. The Motion Picture
Association, for instance, wants not just controls over that which
copyright covers</p>
<p>Yahoo
India and Google India on the other hand thought that provision went
too far. Google made it clear that they thought having criminal
repercussions for circumvention was clearly disproportionate. Thus, a
clearer split is established between old media companies; the old media
companies clutching on to straws that they feel will save them from
adapting their business practices to the digital environment, and online
companies that understand the digital environment better having a
markedly different idea.</p>
<p>Currently
section 65B (read with the definition of "Rights Management
Information" in section 2(xa)) of the proposed amendments ensures that
Rights Management Information cannot be used to spy on users. The Indian
Reprographic Rights Organization however believes that this is wrong:
it believes that copyright owners should have the ability to track users
without their consent. Yahoo India, on the other hand, believes that
this is a harmful provision, and state that "the imposition of criminal
and monetary liability could adversely affect consumers", and cites the
instance of difficulties that would be faced by "entities engaged in
creating copies of any copyright material into a format specially
designed for persons suffering from disability" because of the language
of the provision that requires knowledge instead of intention. The
committee responds to this by summing up with a tautology, stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The
Committee is of the view that the parties responsible for distribution
or broadcasting or communication to the public through authorized
licence from the author or rights holder and who do not remove any
rights management information deliberately for making unauthorized
copies need not worry about this provision as long as their act is as
per the framework of this provision.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Implications of Standing Committee's Report Unclear</h2>
<p>Many of the comments made by the Standing Committee are unclear. On compulsory licensing, the committee states:</p>
<blockquote>The
Committee also takes note of the proposed amendments in section 31 A
relating to compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works. The
provision of compulsory licence for orphaned works available under this
section is proposed to be extended to published works as well. Like in
the case of section 31, extension of applicability to all foreign works
(including film, DVDs, etc.) could be violative of Berne Convention and
TRIPS Agreement and seem to fall short of the minimum obligations
imposed by such instruments. The Committee is of the view that future
implication of proposed amendment in Section 31A vis-à-vis India's
commitment to international agreement needs to be free from any
ambiguity so as to prevent any negative fallout.<br /></blockquote>
<p>However,
the usage of the phrase "could be violative" leaves it unclear whether
the Standing Committee believes the proposed amendments to be violative
of the TRIPS Agreement or not. All that the Standing Committee says is
that the provision needs to be unambiguous, and that TRIPS compliance
must be ensured. That word of caution does not directly rebut the
government's contention that the proposed amendment is TRIPS-compliant.</p>
<p>Similarly,
the Committee's views on increase of copyright term for cinematograph
films is unclear. While commenting on the clause that introduces the
term increase (as part of the proposal to include the principal director
as an author of the film along with the producer), the Committee
states:</p>
<blockquote>It,
therefore, recommends that the proposal to include principal director
as author of the film along with producer may be dropped altogether.<br /></blockquote>
<p>While
this presumably means that the proposal to increase term is also being
rejected, that is not made clear by the Committee's comments.</p>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Increased Copyright Duration, Expansive Moral Rights and Other Negative Changes</h2>
<p>In
the submission of CIS and twenty-one other civil society organizations
to the Standing Committee, we highlighted all of the below concerns.
However, our submission was not tabled before the Standing Committee
for reasons unknown to us.</p>
<ul><li><strong>WCT
and WPPT compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights. Given that
the Standing Committee has recommended against some aspects of WCT
compliance (such as the move to change "hire" to "commercial rental")
and that without such changes India cannot be a signatory to the WCT, it
is unclear why other forms of WCT compliance (such as TPMs) should be
implemented.</li><li><strong>Increase
in duration of copyright</strong>: The duration of copyright of photographs and
video recordings is sought to be increased. The term of copyright for photographs is being increased from sixty years from creation to sixty years from death of the photographer. This will
significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for
internationally, especially through its push for the Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization.<br /></li><li><strong>Moral
rights</strong>: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and
performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made
without requisite safeguards.</li><li><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to
produce, and while the Standing Committee has addressed the concerns of
some in the music industry, it hasn't addressed the concerns of artists
and consumers.</li></ul>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities</h2>
<p>The
following important changes should have been made by the government,
but haven't. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone
beyond the proposed amendments, it hasn't touched upon any of the
following, which we believe are very important changes that are required
to be made.</p>
<ul><li><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial
copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for
circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights
Management Information also.</li><li><strong>Government
works:</strong> Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by
them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march
towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of
s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection would except "the
reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any
government work" as being non-infringing uses.</li><li><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by
our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which
is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.</li><li><strong>Educational exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.</li><li><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</li><li><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to Internet
intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects
such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots
innovation are not stifled.</li><li><strong>Fair
dealing and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would
not take away from the existing exceptions.</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-06T07:50:12ZBlog EntryNew Release of IPR Chapter of India-EU Free Trade Agreement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta
<b>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made publicly available now for the first time, provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.</b>
<p>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/upload/india-eu-fta-ipr-july-2010/at_download/file" class="external-link">publicly available for the first time</a> (PDF, 296Kb), provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.
The consolidated draft which was prepared to serve as the basis of talks that took place from July 12-14, 2010, in New Delhi, reveals parties' negotiating stances in response to preliminary positions put forth earlier (see <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?article17290">IPR Chapter May draft</a>).</p>
<p>In particular, this draft reflects India's rejection of many EU proposals that would require India to:</p>
<ul><li>exceed its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), e.g by providing data exclusivity for pharmaceutical products; <br /></li><li>impose radical enforcement provisions, such as liability of intermediary service providers, border measures for goods in transit, and raised norms for damages and injunctions; or <br /></li><li>require legislative change, e.g., on data protection, and to accommodate the full EU demands on geographical indicators. <br /></li></ul>
<p>
A chart compiled by CIS comparing proposed language by India and the EU in several provisions with TRIPS can be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf" class="internal-link" title="New Release of IPR Chapter">here</a> (PDF, 402 Kb).</p>
<p>Sources close to the negotiations have also confirmed that during the July talks India reiterated its refusal to go beyond TRIPS, and its refusal to discuss issues that require changes to Indian law. India appears to have also reiterated that it could not finalise FTA copyright provisions before passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill in the Indian Parliament.</p>
<p>
It is hard to assess the current state of the negotiations on IP or to measure the outcomes of subsequently held talks without access to recent drafts, a public record of deliberations, or the schedule of full and intersessional rounds taking place. However, from press and other statements attributed to the European Commission and Indian officials after the December 2010 EU-India Summit in Brussels, it appears that:</p>
<ul><li>
both parties plan to conclude the FTA, the biggest ever for the EU, by Spring 2011; <br /></li><li>the EU has not relaxed its pursuit of at least some "TRIPS plus" provisions such as data protection for pharmaceuticals <br /></li><li>a mutually agreed solution to India's WTO case against the EU over the seizure of generic medicines may be round the corner. Its impact on the FTA is open to speculation. <br /></li></ul>
<p>Because the India-EU FTA is likely to set a new precedent for future trade agreements between developed and developing countries, and with enormous stakes for patients across the globe, India and the EU need to get it right and ensure no provision runs counter to the interests of millions of citizens.</p>
<p>For further information about the text, contact Malini Aisola <malini.aisola@gmail.com> or Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityAccess to Knowledge2011-09-22T12:34:05ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012
<b>There are some welcome provisions in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012, and some worrisome provisions. Pranesh Prakash examines five positive changes, four negative ones, and notes the several missed opportunities. The larger concern, though, is that many important issues have not been addressed by these amendments, and how copyright policy is made without evidence and often out of touch with contemporary realities of the digital era.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012</a> has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and will become law as soon as the President gives her assent and it is published in the Gazette of India. While we celebrate the passage of some progressive amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 — including an excellent exception for persons with disabilities — we must keep in mind that there are some regressive amendments as well. In this blog post, I will try to highlight those provisions of the amendment that have not received much public attention (unlike the issue of lyricists’ and composers’ ‘right to royalty’).</p>
<h2>Welcome Changes</h2>
<h3>Provisions for Persons with Disabilities</h3>
<p>India now has amongst the most progressive exception for persons with disabilities, alongside countries like Chile. Under the amendments, sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B carve out exceptions and limitations for persons with disabilities. Earlier s.52(1)(zb) dealt only with formats that were “special designed only for the use of persons suffering from visual, aural, or other disabilities”. Thanks to a campaign mounted by disability rights groups and public interest groups such as CIS, it now covers “any accessible format”. Section 52(1)(zb) allows any person to facilitate access by persons with disabilities to copyrighted works without any payment of compensation to the copyright holder, and any organization working the benefit of persons with disabilities to do so as long as it is done on a non-profit basis and with reasonable steps being taken to prevent entry of reproductions of the copyrighted work into the mainstream. Even for-profit businesses are allowed to do so if they obtain a compulsory licence on a work-by-work basis, and pay the royalties fixed by the Copyright Board. The onerousness of this provision puts its utility into question, and this won’t disappear unless the expression “work” in s.31B is read to include a class of works.</p>
<p>Given that the Delhi High Court has — wrongly and <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_incuriam">per incuriam</a>, since it did not refer to s.14(a)(ii) as it was amended in 1994 — held parallel importation to be barred by the Copyright Act, it was important for Parliament to clarify that the Copyright Act in fact follows international exhaustion. Without this, even if any person can facilitate access for persons with disabilities to copyrighted works, those works are restricted to those that are circulated in India. Given that not many books are converted into accessible formats in India (not to mention the costs of doing so), and given the much larger budgets for book conversion in the developed world, this is truly restrictive.</p>
<h3>Extension of Fair Dealing to All Works</h3>
<p>The law earlier dealt with fair dealing rights with regard to “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works”. Now it covers all works (except software), in effect covering sound recordings and video as well. This will help make personal copies of songs and films, to make copies for research, to use film clips in classrooms, etc.</p>
<h3>Creative Commons, Open Licensing Get a Boost</h3>
<p>The little-known s.21 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the right of authors to relinquish copyright, has been amended. While earlier one could only relinquish parts of one’s copyright by submitting a form to the Registrar of Copyrights, now a simple public notice suffices. Additionally, s.30 of the Act, which required licences to be in writing and signed, now only requires it to be in writing. This puts Creative Commons, the GNU Public Licence, and other open licensing models, on a much surer footing in India.</p>
<h3>Physical Libraries Should Celebrate, Perhaps Virtual Libraries Too</h3>
<p>Everywhere that the word “hire” occurs (except s.51, curiously), the word “commercial rental” has been substituted. This has been done, seemingly, to bring India in conformance with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). The welcome side-effect of this is that the legality of lending by non-profit public libraries has been clarified. The amendment states:</p>
<p class="discreet">"2(1)(fa) “commercial rental” does not include the rental, lease or lending of a lawfully acquired copy of a computer programme, sound recording, visual recording or cinematograph film for non-profit purposes by a non-profit library or non-profit educational institution."</p>
<p>Even after this, the overwhelming majority of the ‘video lending libraries’ that you see in Indian cities and towns continue to remain illegal.</p>
<p>Another welcome provision is the amended s.52(1)(n), which now allows “non-commercial public libraries” to store an electronic copy of a work if it already has a physical copy of the work. However, given that this provision says that the storage shall be “for preservation”, it seems limited. However, libraries might be able to use this — in conjunction with the fact that under s.14 of the Copyright Act lending rights of authors is limited to “commercial rental” and s.51(b) only covers lending of “infringing copies” — to argue that they can legally scan and lend electronic copies of works in the same manner that they lend physical copies. Whether this argument would succeed is unclear. Thus, India has not boldly gone where the European Commission is treading with talks of a European Digital Library Project, or where scholars in the US are headed with the Digital Public Library of America. But we might have gone there quietly. Thus, this amendment might help foster an Indian <a class="external-link" href="http://internetarchive.org/">Internet Archive</a>, or help spread the idea of the <a class="external-link" href="http://openlibrary.org/">Open Library</a> in India.</p>
<p>On a final note, different phrases are used to refer to libraries in the amendment. In s.2(1)(fa), it talks about "non-profit library"; in s.52(1)(n) and (o), it refers to "non-commercial public library"; and in s.52(1)(zb), it talks of "library or archives", but s.52(1)(zb) also requires that the works be made available on a "non-profit basis". The differentiation, if any, that is sought to be drawn between these is unclear.</p>
<h3>Limited Protection to Some Internet Intermediaries</h3>
<p>There are two new provisions, s.52(1)(b) and 52(1)(c), which provide some degree of protection to 'transient or incidental' storage of a work or performance. Section 52(1)(b) allows for "the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public", hence applying primarily to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), VPN providers, etc. Section 52(1)(c) allows for "transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy". This seems to make it applicable primarily to search engines, with other kinds of online services being covered or not covered depending on one’s interpretation of the word 'incidental'.</p>
<h3>Compulsory Licensing Now Applies to Foreign Works Also</h3>
<p>Sections 31 ("compulsory licence in works withheld from public") and 31A ("compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works") used to apply to Indian works. Now they apply to all works, whether Indian or not (and now s.31A is about "compulsory licence in unpublished or published works", mainly orphan works). This is a welcome amendment, making foreign works capable of being licensed compulsorily in case it is published elsewhere but withheld in India. Given how onerous our compulsory licensing sections are, especially sections 32 and 32A (which deal with translations, and with literary, scientific or artistic works), it is not a surprise that they have not been used even once. However, given the modifications to s.31 and s.31A, we might just see those starting to be used by publishers, and not just radio broadcasters.</p>
<h2>Worrisome Changes</h2>
<h3>Term of Copyright for Photographs Nearly Doubled</h3>
<p>The term of copyright for photographs has now gone from sixty years from publication to sixty years from the death of the photographer. This would mean that copyright in a photograph clicked today (2012) by a 20 year old who dies at the 80 will only expire on January 1, 2133. This applies not only to artistic photographs, to all photographs because copyright is an opt-out system, not an opt-in system. Quite obviously, most photoshopping is illegal under copyright law.</p>
<p>This has two problems. First, there was no case made out for why this term needed to be increased. No socio-economic report was commissioned on the effects of such a term increase. This clause was not even examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. While the WCT requires a ‘life + 50′ years term for photographs, we are not signatories to the WCT, and hence have no obligation to enforce this. We are signatories to the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, which require a copyright term of 25 years for photographs. Instead, we have gone even above the WCT requirement and provide a life + 60 years term.</p>
<p>The second problem is that it is easier to say when a photograph was published than to say who the photographer was and when that photographer died. Even when you are the subject of a photograph, the copyright in the photograph belongs to the photographer. Unless a photograph was made under commission or the photographer assigned copyright to you, you do not own the copyright in the photographs. (Thanks to <a href="http://deviantlight.blogspot.com">Bipin Aspatwar</a>, for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version, with "employment" and "commission" being treated differently.) This will most definitely harm projects like Wikipedia, and other projects that aim at archiving and making historical photographs available publicly, since it is difficult to say whether the copyright in a photograph still persists.</p>
<h3>Cover Versions Made More Difficult: Kolaveri Di Singers Remain Criminals</h3>
<p>The present amendments have brought about the following changes, which make it more difficult to produce cover versions:</p>
<ol>
<li> Time period after which a cover version can be made has increased from 2 years to 5 years.</li>
<li>Requirement of same medium as the original. So if the original is on a cassette, the cover cannot be released on a CD.</li>
<li>Payment has to be made in advance, and for a minimum of 50000 copies. This can be lowered by Copyright Board having regard to unpopular dialects.</li>
<li>While earlier it was prohibited to mislead the public (i.e., pretend the cover was the original, or endorsed by the original artists), now cover versions are not allowed to "contain the name or depict in any way any performer of an earlier sound recording of the same work or any cinematograph film in which such sound recording was incorporated".</li>
<li>All cover versions must state that they are cover versions.</li>
<li>No alterations are allowed from the original song, and alteration is qualified as ‘alteration in the literary or musical work’. So no imaginative covers in which the lyrics are changed or in which the music is reworked are allowed without the copyright owners’ permission. Only note-for-note and word-for-word covers are allowed.</li>
<li>Alterations were allowed if they were "reasonably necessary for the adaptation of the work" now they are only allowed if it is "technically necessary for the purpose of making of the sound recording".</li>
</ol>
<p>This ignores present-day realities. Kolaveri Di was covered numerous times without permission, and each one of those illegal acts helped spread its popularity. The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars. Film producers and music companies want both the audience reach that comes from less stringent copyright laws (and things like cover versions), as well as the ability to prosecute that same behaviour at will. It is indeed ironic that T-Series, the company that broke HMV’s stranglehold over the Indian recording market thanks to cover versions, is itself one of the main movers behind ever-more stringent copyright laws.</p>
<h3>Digital Locks Now Provided Legal Protection Without Accountability</h3>
<p>As I have covered the issue of Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Rights Management Information (RMI), which are ‘digital locks’ also known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment" class="external-link">in great detail earlier</a>, I won’t repeat the arguments at length. Very briefly:</p>
<ol>
<li>It is unclear that anyone has been demanding the grant of legal protection to DRMs in India, and We have no obligation under any international treaties to do so. It is not clear how DRM will help authors and artists, but it is clear how it will harm users.</li>
<li>While the TPM and RMI provisions are much more balanced than the equivalent provisions in laws like the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMC), that isn’t saying much. Importantly, while users are given certain rights to break the digital locks, they are helpless if they aren’t also provided the technological means of doing so. Simply put: music and movie companies have rights to place digital locks, and under some limited circumstances users have the right to break them. But if the locks are difficult to break, the users have no choice but to live with the lock, despite having a legal right.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Removal of Parallel Importation</h3>
<p>In past blog posts I have covered <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books" class="external-link">why allowing parallel imports makes sense in India</a>. And as explained above, the Delhi High Court acted per incuriam when holding that the Copyright Act does not allow parallel importation. The Copyright Act only prohibits import of infringing copies of a work, and a copy of a book that has been legally sold in a foreign country is not an “infringing copy”. The government was set to introduce a provision making it clear that parallel importation was allowed. The Parliamentary Standing Committee heard objections to this proposal from a foreign publishers’ association, but decided to recommend the retention of the clause. Still, due to pressure from a few publishing companies whose business relies on monopolies over importation of works into India, the government has decided to delete the provision. However, thankfully, the HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, has assured both houses of Parliament that he will move a further amendment if an<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ncaer.org/"> NCAER</a> report he has commissioned (which will be out by August or September) recommends the introduction of parallel imports.</p>
<h3>Expansion of Moral Rights Without Safeguards</h3>
<p>Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without adequate safeguards. The changes might allow the legal heir of an author, artist, etc., to object to ‘distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act’ of her ancestors work even when the ancestor might not have. By this amendment, this right continues in perpetuity, even after the original creator dies and even after the work enters into the public domain. It seems Indian policymakers had not heard of <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_James_Joyce">Stephen Joyce</a>, the grandson of James Joyce, who has “brought numerous lawsuits or threats of legal action against scholars, biographers and artists attempting to quote from Joyce’s literary work or personal correspondence”. Quoting from his Wikipedia page:</p>
<p class="callout">In 2004, Stephen threatened legal action against the Irish government when the Rejoyce Dublin 2004 festival proposed public reading of excerpts of Ulysses on Bloomsday. In 1988 Stephen Joyce burnt a collection of letters written by Lucia Joyce, his aunt. In 1989 he forced Brenda Maddox to delete a postscript concerning Lucia from her biography Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom. After 1995 Stephen announced no permissions would be granted to quote from his grandfather’s work. Libraries holding letters by Joyce were unable to show them without permission. Versions of his work online were disallowed. Stephen claimed to be protecting his grandfather’s and families reputation, but would sometimes grant permission to use material in exchange for fees that were often "extortionate".</p>
<p>Because in countries like the UK and Canada the works of James Joyce are now in the public domain, Stephen Joyce can no longer restrict apply such conditions. However now, in India, despite James Joyce’s works being in the public domain, Stephen Joyce’s indefensible demands may well carry legal weight.</p>
<h3>Backdoor Censorship</h3>
<p>As noted above, the provision that safeguard Internet intermediaries (like search engines) is very limited. However, that provision has an extensive removal provision:</p>
<p class="callout">Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;</p>
<p>There are two things to be noted here. First, that without proof (or negative consequences for false complaints) the service provider is mandated to prevent access to the copy for 21 day. Second, after the elapsing of 21 days, the service provider may 'put back' the content, but is not mandated to do so. This would allow people to file multiple frivolous complaints against any kind of material, even falsely (since there is no penalty for false compalaints), and keep some material permanently censored.</p>
<h2>Missed Opportunities</h2>
<h3>Fair Dealing Guidelines, Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities</h3>
<p>The following important changes should have been made by the government, but haven’t. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone beyond the proposed amendments, it has not touched upon any of the following, which we believe are very important changes that are required to be made.</p>
<ul>
<li> Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights Management Information also.</li>
<li>Fair dealing guidelines: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions, but would act as a more general framework for those cases which are not covered by the specific exceptions.</li>
<li>Government works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection could simply allow for “the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work” as being non-infringing uses.</li>
<li>Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.</li>
<li>Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.</li>
<li>Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</li>
<li>Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled. Importantly, after the terrible judgment passed by Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court in the Super Cassettes v. Myspace case, any website hosting user-generated content is vulnerable to payment of hefty damages even if it removes content speedily on the basis of complaints.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Amendments Not Examined</h2>
<p>For the sake of brevity, I have not examined the major changes that have been made with regard to copyright societies, lyricists and composers, and statutory licensing for broadcasters, all of which have received considerable attention by copyright experts elsewhere, nor have I examined many minor amendments.</p>
<h2>A Note on the Parliamentary Process</h2>
<p>Much of the discussions around the Copyright Act have been around the rights of composers and lyricists vis-à-vis producers. As this has been covered elsewhere, I won’t comment much on it, other than to say that it is quite unfortunate that the trees are lost for the forest. It is indeed a good thing that lyricists and composers are being provided additional protection against producers who are usually in a more advantageous bargaining position. This fact came out well in both houses of Parliament during the debate on the Copyright Bill.<br /><br />However, the mechanism of providing this protection — by preventing assignment of “the right to receive royalties”, though the “right to receive royalties” is never mentioned as a separate right anywhere else in the Copyright Act — was not critically examined by any of the MPs who spoke. What about the unintended consequences of such an amendment? Might this not lead to new contracts where instead of lump-sums, lyricists and music composers might instead be asked to bear the risk of not earning anything at all unless the film is profitable? What about a situation where a producer asks a lyricist to first assign all rights (including royalty rights) to her heirs and then enters into a contract with those heirs? The law, unfortunately at times, revolves around words used by the legislature and not just the intent of the legislature. While one cannot predict which way the amendment will go, one would have expected better discussions around this in Parliament.</p>
<p>Much of the discussion (in both <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/Fullday.pdf">the Rajya Sabha</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.132/newdebate/15/10/22052012/Fullday.pdf">the Lok Sabha</a>) was rhetoric about the wonders of famous Indian songwriters and music composers and the abject penury in which some not-so-famous ones live, and there was very little discussion about the actual merits of the content of the Bill in terms of how this problem will be overcome. A few MPs did deal with issues of substance. Some asked the HRD Minister tough questions about the Statement of Objects and Reasons noting that amendments have been brought about to comply with the WCT and WPPT which were “adopted … by consensus”, even though this is false as India is not a signatory to the WCT and WPPT. MP P. Rajeeve further raised the issue of parallel imports and that of there being no public demand for including TPM in the Act, but that being a reaction to the US’s flawed Special 301 reports. Many, however, spoke about issues such as the non-award of the Bharat Ratna to Bhupen Hazarika, about the need to tackle plagiarism, and how the real wealth of a country is not material wealth but intellectual wealth.</p>
<p>This preponderance of rhetoric over content is not new when it comes to copyright policy in India. In 1991, when an amendment was presented to increase term of copyright in all works by ten years (from expiring 50 years from the author’s death to 60 years post-mortem), the vast majority of the Parliamentarians who stood up to speak on the issue waxed eloquent about the greatness of Rabindranath Tagore (whose works were about to lapse into the public domain), and how we must protect his works. Little did they reflect that extending copyright — for all works, whether by Tagore or not — will not help ‘protect’ the great Bengali artist, but would only make his (and all) works costlier for 10 additional years. Good-quality and cheaper editions of Tagore’s works are more easily available post-2001 (when his copyright finally lapsed) than before, since companies like Rupa could produce cheap editions without seeking a licence from Visva Bharati. And last I checked Tagore’s works have not been sullied by them having passed into the public domain in 2001.</p>
<p>Further, one could find outright mistakes in the assertions of Parliamentarians. In both Houses, DMK MPs raised objections with regard to parallel importation being allowed in the Bill — only in the version of the Bill they were debating, parallel importation was not being allowed. One MP stated that “statutory licensing provisions like these are not found anywhere else in the world”. This is incorrect, given that there are extensive statutory licensing provision in countries like the United States, covering a variety of situations, from transmission of sound recordings over Internet radio to secondary transmission of the over-the-air programming.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, though that MP did not raise this issue, there is a larger problem that underlies copyright policymaking in India, and that is the fact that there is no impartial evidence gathered and no proper studies that are done before making of policies. We have no equivalent of the Hargreaves Report or the Gowers Report, or the studies by the Productivity Council in Australia or the New Zealand government study of parallel importation.</p>
<p>There was no economic analysis conducted of the effect of the increase in copyright term for photographs. We have evidence from elsewhere that copyright terms <a class="external-link" href="http://williampatry.blogspot.in/2007/07/statute-of-anne-too-generous-by-half.html">are already</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2024588">too long</a>, and all increases in term are what economists refer to as <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss">deadweight losses</a>. There is no justification whatsoever for increasing term of copyright for photographs, since India is not even a signatory to the WCT (which requires this term increase). In fact, we have lost precious negotiation space internationally since in bilateral trade agreements we have been asked to bring our laws in compliance with the WCT, and we have asked for other conditions in return. By unilaterally bringing ourselves in compliance with WCT, we have lost important bargaining power.</p>
<h2>Users and Smaller Creators Left Out of Discussions</h2>
<p>Thankfully, the Parliamentary Standing Committee went into these minutiae in greater detail. Though, as I have noted elsewhere, the Parliamentary Standing Committee did not invite any non-industry groups for deposition before it, other than the disability rights groups which had campaigned really hard. So while changes that would affect libraries were included, not a single librarian was called by the Standing Committee. Despite comments having been submitted <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/copyright-bill-submission" class="external-link">to the Standing Committee on behalf of 22 civil society organizations</a>, none of those organizations were asked to depose. Importantly, non-industry users of copyrighted materials — consumers, historians, teachers, students, documentary film-makers, RTI activists, independent publishers, and people like you and I — are not seen as legitimate interested parties in the copyright debate. This is amply clear from the the fact that only one MP each in the two houses of Parliament raised the issue of users’ rights at all.</p>
<h2>Concluding Thoughts</h2>
<p>What stands out most from this process of amendment of the copyright law, which has been going on since 2006, is how out-of-touch the law is with current cultural practices. Most instances of photoshopping are illegal. Goodbye Lolcats. Cover versions (for which payments have to be made) have to wait for five years. Goodbye Kolaveri Di. Do you own the jokes you e-mail to others, and have you taken licences for quoting older e-mails in your replies? Goodbye e-mail. The strict laws of copyright, with a limited set of exceptions, just do not fit the digital era where everything digital transaction results in a bytes being copied. We need to take a much more thoughtful approach to rationalizing copyright: introduction of general fair dealing guidelines, reduction of copyright term, decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, and other such measures. If we don’t take such measures soon, we will all have to be prepared to be treated as criminals for all our lives. Breaking copyright law shouldn’t be as easy as breathing, yet thanks to outdated laws, it is.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/26243">This was reposted in infojustice.org on May 25, 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeFair DealingsPiracyIntellectual Property RightsEconomicsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedTechnological Protection Measures2013-11-12T14:13:04ZBlog EntrySuper Cassettes v. MySpace
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space
<b>The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Super Cassettes v. MySpace last July is worrying for a number of reasons. The court failed to appreciate the working of intermediaries online and disregard all pragmatic considerations involved. The consequences for free expression and particularly for file sharing by users of services online are especially unfavourable. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment<a href="#fn*" name="fr*">[*]</a>is extremely worrying since it holds MySpace liable for copyright infringement, <b>despite</b> it having shown that it did not know, and could not have known, about each instance of infringement; that it removed each instance of alleged infringement upon mere complaint; that it asked Super Cassettes to submit their songs to their song identification database and Super Cassettes didn't.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This, in essence, means, that all 'social media services' in which there is even a <b>potential</b> for copyright infringement (such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are now faced with a choice of either braving lawsuits for activities of their users that they have no control over — they can at best respond to takedown requests after the infringing material has already been put up — or to wind down their operations in India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Facts</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aside from social networking, MySpace facilitates the sharing of content between its users. This case concerns content (whose copyright vested in T-Series) was uploaded by users to MySpace’s website. It appears that tensions between MySpace and T-Series arose in 2007, when T-Series entered into talks with MySpace to grant it licenses in its copyrighted content, while MySpace asked instead that T-Series register with its rights management programme. Neither the license nor the registration came about, and the infringing material continued to be available on the MySpace website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specifically, T-Series alleged that cases for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51 (a) (ii) could be made out. Alleging that MySpace had infringed its copyrights and so affected its earnings in royalties, T-Series approached the Delhi High Court and filed a suit seeking injunctive relief and damages. In proceedings for interim relief while the suit was pending, the court granted an injunction, but, in an appeal by MySpace, added the qualification that the content would have to be taken down only on receipt of a specific catalogue of infringing works available on MySpace, rather than a general list of works in which T-Series held a copyright.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Defence</h2>
<p>While other arguments such as one around the jurisdiction of the court were also raised, the central issues are listed below:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Non-Specificity of Prayer<br />T-Series’ claim in the suit is for a blanket injunction on copyrighted content on the MySpace website. This imposes a clearly untenable, even impossible, burden for intermediaries to comply with.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge<br />MySpace argued that no liability could accrue to it on two counts. The first was that it had no actual or direct knowledge or role in the selection of the content, while the second was that no control was exercised, or was exercisable over the uploading of the content. Additionally, there was no possible means by which it could have identified the offending content and segregated it from lawful content, or monitored all of the content that it serves as a platform for.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediary status and Safe Harbour Protection<br />In relation to its status as an intermediary, MySpace raised several arguments. First, it argued that it had immunity under section 79 of the IT Act and under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (US DMCA). Another argument restated what is arguably the most basic tenet of intermediary liability that merely providing the platform by which infringement could occur cannot amount to infringement. In other words, the mere act of facilitating expression over internet does not amount to infringement. It then made reference to its terms of use and its institution of safeguards (in the form of a hash filter, a rights management tool and a system of take-down–stay-down), which it argued clearly reflect an intention to discourage or else address cases of infringement as they arise. MySpace also emphasized that a US DMCA compliant procedure was in place, although T-Series countered that the notice and take down system would not mitigate the infringement.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Relationship between MySpace and its Users<br />Taking from previous arguments about a lack of control and its status as an intermediary, MySpace argued that it was simply a licensee of users who uploaded content. The license is limited, in that MySpace is only allowed to alter user-generated content so as to make it viewable.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Outcomes</h2>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Infringement by Facilitation<br />The court concluded that infringement in terms of section 51 (a) (ii) had occurred in this case, since web space is a “place” in the terms required by the section and there were monetary gains in the form of ad revenue. The argument as to a lack of knowledge of infringement was also rejected on the ground that MySpace’s provision for safeguards against infringement clearly established a reason to believe that infringement will occur. Also referenced as evidence of knowledge, or at least a reason to believe infringement would occur, is the fact that MySpace modifies the format of the content before making it available on its website. It also tested for infringement by authorization in terms of section 14 read with section 51 (a) (i), but concluded that this did not arise here.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reading away section 79?<br />The court accepted the argument made by T-Series to the effect that sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act must be read together. Since section 79 would be overridden by section 81’s non-obstante, the effect would be that rights holders’ interests under the Copyright Act will erode intermediaries’ immunity under section 79. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Due Diligence<br />The court rejected the argument that the provision of due diligence or curative measures post-infringement would be sufficient. Specifically, the contention that the quantum of content being uploaded precludes close scrutiny, given the amount of labour that would be involved, was rejected. Content should not immediately be made available but must be subject to enquiries as to its title or to authentication of its proprietor before it is made available. In fact, it holds that, “there is no reason to axiomatically make each and every work available to the public solely because user has supplied them unless the defendants are so sure that it is not infringement.” (Paragraph 88).</li>
</ol> <ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is also an attempt to distinguish the Indian framework from the DMCA. While that law calls for post-infringement measures, it is argued that in India, on reading section 51 with section 55, the focus is on preventing infringement at the threshold. In response to the case that it would be impossible to do so, the court held that since the process here requires MySpace to modify the format of content uploaded to it to make it viewable, it will have a reasonable opportunity to test for infringement.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Analysis</h2>
<h3>Accounting for the Medium of Communication</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court’s analysis of the issues begins with a predictable emphasis on how the law of copyright would operate in the context of what is termed “internet computing”, peppered with trite statements about “the virtual world of internet” creating “complexit[ies]” for copyright law. The court appears to have entered into this discussion to establish that the notion of place in section 51 (a) (ii) should extend to “web space” but the statements made here only serve to contrast starkly against its subsequent failure to account for the peculiarities of form and function of intermediaries online. Had this line of argument been taken to its logical conclusion, after the character of the medium had been appreciated, the court’s final conclusion, that MySpace is liable for copyright infringement, would have been an impossible one to arrive at.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">And What of Free Speech?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it had argued before the court, intermediaries such as MySpace have no means by which to determine whether content is illegal (whether by reason of amounting to a violation of copyright, or otherwise) until content is uploaded. In other words, there is no existing mechanism by which this determination can be made at the threshold, before posting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court does not engage with the larger consequences for such a scheme of penalizing intermediaries. Censoring patent illegalities at the threshold, even if that were possible is one thing. The precedent that the court creates here is quite another. Given the general difficulty in conclusively establishing whether there is an infringement at all due to the complexities in applying the exceptions contained under section 52, it should not be for ordinary private or commercial interests such as intermediaries to sit in judgment over whether content is or is not published at all. In order to minimize its own liability, the likelihood of legitimate content being censored by the intermediary prior to posting is high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The consequences for civil liberties, and free speech and expression online in particular, appear to have been completely ignored in favour of rights holders’ commercial interests.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Consequences for Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection</h3>
<blockquote class="pullquote" style="text-align: justify; ">Even if every instance in question did amount to an infringement of copyright and a mechanism did exist allowing for removal of content, the effect of this judgment is to create a strict liability regime for intermediaries.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In other words, the court’s ruling will have the effect that courts’ determination of intermediaries’ liability will become detached from whether or not any fault can be attributed to them. MySpace did make this argument, even going as far as to suggest that doing so would impose strict liability on intermediaries. This would lead to an unprecedented and entirely unjustifiable result. In spite the fact that a given intermediary did apply all available means to prevent the publication of potentially infringing content, it would remain potentially liable for any illegality in the content, even though the illegality could not have been detected or addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What is perhaps even more worrying is that MySpace’s attempt at proactively and in good faith preventing copyright infringement through its terms of use and in addressing them through its post-infringement measures was explicitly cited as evidence of knowledge of and control over the uploading of copyrighted material, at the threshold rather than ex post. This creates perverse incentives for the intermediary to ignore infringement, to the detriment of rights holders, rather than act proactively to minimize its incidence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A final observation is that the court’s use, while pronouncing on relief, of the fact that MySpace makes a “copy” of the uploaded content by converting it into a format that could subsequently be hosted on the site and made accessible to show evidence of infringement and impose liability upon MySpace in itself is a glaring instance of the disingenuous reasoning the court employs throughout the case. There is another problem with the amended section 79, which waives immunity where the intermediary “modifies” material. That term is vague and overreaches, as it does here: altering formats to make content compatible with a given platform is not comparable to choices as to the content of speech or expression, but the reading is tenable under section 79 as it stands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The result of all of this is to dislodge the section 79 immunity that accrues to intermediaries and replace that with a presumption that they are liable, rather than not, for any illegality in the content that they passively host.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Effect of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the judgment in the MySpace case, the Copyright Act has been amended to include some provisions that would bear on online service providers and on intermediaries’ liability for hosting infringing content, in particular. Section 52 (1) (b) of the amended Act provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public” would not infringe copyright. The other material provision is section 52 (1) (c) which provides that “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy” will not constitute an infringement of copyright. The latter provision appears to institute a rather rudimentary, and very arguably incomplete, system of notice and takedown by way of a proviso. This requires intermediaries to takedown content on written complaint from copyright owners for a period of 21 days or until a competent rules on the matter whichever is sooner, and restore access to the content once that time period lapses, if there is no court order to sustain it beyond that period.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post does not account for the effect that these provisions could have had on the case, but it is already clear, from the sloppy drafting of section 52 (1) (c) and its proviso that they are not entirely salutary even at the outset. At any rate, there appears to be nothing that *<i>determinatively*</i> affects intermediaries’ secondary liability, <i>i.e.</i>, their liability for users’ infringing acts.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Disclosure: CIS is now a party to these proceedings at the Delhi High Court. This is a purely academic critique, and should not be seen to have any prejudice to the arguments we will make there.</i></p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr*" name="fn*">*</a>]. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. and Another, on 29 July, 2011, Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law. See<a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/quj6JW"> http://bit.ly/quj6JW</a>, last accessed on October 31, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space</a>
</p>
No publisherujwalaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeatured2012-10-31T10:27:36ZBlog EntryPress Coverage of Online Censorship Row
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship
<b>We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.</b>
<h2>Monday, December 5, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?pagemode=print">India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<h2>Tuesday, December 6, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2690084.ece">Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content</a> | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2691781.ece">Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal</a> | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692821.ece">Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended/">Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended </a>| Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692047.ece">After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory </a>| (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-india-internet-idUSTRE7B50CV20111206">Online uproar as India seeks social media screening</a> | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/news/30481824_1_kapil-sibal-objectionable-content-twitter">Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship</a> | (IANS)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245548/india_may_overstep_its_own_laws_in_demanding_content_filtering.html">India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering</a> | John Ribeiro (IDG)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481147_1_shashi-tharoor-objectionable-content-bjp-mp">Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp8HOPzc7k">Websites must clean up content, says Sibal </a>| (NewsX)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-Google-says-wont-remove-material-just-because-its-controversial/articleshow/11008985.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial </a>| Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/06155955/Views--Censorship-by-any-othe.html?h=A1">Censorship By Any Other Name...</a> | Yamini Lohia (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481193_1_facebook-and-google-facebook-users-facebook-page">Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people</a> | Associated Press</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/india/30481473_1_digvijaya-singh-websites-content">Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening</a> | Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Sibal-gets-what-he-set-out-to-censor/Article1-778388.aspx">Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor </a>| (Hindustan Times, Agencies)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/objectionable-matter-will-be-removed-censorship-not-picture-yet-kapil-sibal">Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal</a> | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)</p>
<h2>Wednesday, December 7, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-for-monitoring-offensive-content-on-internet/1/163107.html">Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet</a> | Shivam Vij (India Today)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/screening-not-censorship-says-sibal/457797/">Screening, not censorship, says Sibal</a> | (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07202955/Chandni-Chowk-to-China.html">Chandni Chowk to China</a> | Salil Tripathi (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07131308/Views--Kapil-Sibal-vs-the-int.html">Kapil Sibal vs the internet</a> | Sandipan Deb (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/No-need-for-censorship-of-internet-Cyber-law-experts/articleshow/11014990.cms">No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695832.ece">Protest with flowers for Sibal</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kapil-sibal-cannot-screen-this-report_1622435">Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report</a> | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-but-experts-say-prescreening-of-user-content-not-practical/articleshow/11019481.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical </a>| (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/sibal-s-remarks-brought-disgust">Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust</a> | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695884.ece">BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/move-to-regulate-networking-sites-should-be-discussed-in-parliament-bjp/articleshow/11023284.cms">Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/top-story/26016-sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace.html">Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-Govt-wanted-358-items-removed/articleshow/11021470.cms">Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-gets-BJP-support-but-with-rider/articleshow/11020128.cms">Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Sibal-s-way-of-regulating-web-not-okay-says-BJP/Article1-779221.aspx">Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/just-faith/?p=1034">Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings</a> | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222500/India_wants_Google_Facebook_to_screen_content">India wants Google, Facebook to screen content</a> | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/should-we-be-taming-social-media-62303153.htm">Should we be taming social media?</a> | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_kapil-sibal-gets-lampooned-for-views-on-web-control_1622491">Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control</a> | (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/We-dont-need-no-limitation/articleshow/11020244.cms">'We don't need no limitation'</a> | Asha Prakash (Times of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Five-reasons-why-India-cant-censor-the-internet/articleshow/11018172.cms">Five reasons why India can't censor the internet</a> | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-the-web/884753/">We Are the Web</a> | (Indian Express)</p>
<h2>Thursday, December 8, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace/articleshow/11029319.cms">Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a>, (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/speak-up-for-freedom/885132/">Speak Up for Freedom </a>| Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/newswallah-censorship/">Newswallah: Censorship</a> | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-question-of-censoring-internet-says-sachin-pilot-156281">No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot </a>| (NDTV)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/web-censorship-india">Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You</a> | A.A.K. (The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Take-Parliaments-view-to-regulate-social-networking-sites-BJP-tells-govt/articleshow/11025858.cms">Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2696027.ece">India wanted 358 items removed</a> | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.barandbench.com/brief/2/1891/indian-government-v-social-networking-sites-expert-views">Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views</a> | (Bar & Bench News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://business-standard.com/india/news/can-government-muzzle-websites/457909/">Can Government Muzzle Websites?</a> | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-concerned-over-internet-curbs-sidesteps-india-move/articleshow/11029532.cms">US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-internet-companies-are-upset-with-kapil-sibal/20111208.htm">Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal</a> | (Rediff)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Why_Censor_Facebook_When_You_Dont_Censor_Sunny_Leone-nid-99931-cid-1.html">Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone?</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2697432.ece">Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S.</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0BfQkpJMZISTc3fjs3VgH7orciw?docId=CNG.8dc3992299cb598cecde0fffb1db8bcd.1c1">US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan</a> | Agence France-Presse</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActLinksFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2011-12-08T11:31:30ZBlog EntryOverview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact
<b>There are currently ten cases before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Information Technology Act, the rules made under that, and other laws, that are being heard jointly. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who's arguing Anoop M.K. v. Union of India has put together this chart that helps you track what's being challenged in each case.</b>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table class="tg" style="undefined;table-layout: fixed; border=">
<tr>
<th class="tg-s6z2">PENDING MATTERS</th>
<th class="tg-s6z2">CASE NUMBER</th>
<th class="tg-0ord">PROVISIONS CHALLENGED</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 167/2012</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Common Cause & Anr. v. Union of India</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 21/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A, 69A & 80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(C) NO. 23/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A & Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 3(7) of the Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Dilip Kumar Tulsidas Shah v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 97/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 199/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A, 69A, Intermediaries Rules 2011 (s.79(2) Rules) & Blocking of Access of Information by Public Rules 2009 (s.69A Rules)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Mouthshut.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(C) NO. 217/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A & Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Taslima Nasrin v. State of U.P & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 222/2013</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">66A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Manoj Oswal v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 225/2013</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A & 499/500 Indian Penal Code</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-4eph">Internet and Mobile Ass'n of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.</td>
<td class="tg-spn1">W.P.(C) NO. 758/2014</td>
<td class="tg-zapm">79(3) & Intermediaries Rules 2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-031e">Anoop M.K. v. Union of India & Ors.</td>
<td class="tg-s6z2">W.P.(CRL.) NO. 196/2014</td>
<td class="tg-0ord">66A, 69A, 80 & S.118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActCourt CaseFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntermediary LiabilityConstitutional LawCensorshipSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2014-12-19T09:01:50ZBlog EntryNational Consultation on Media Law
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law
<b>The Law Commission of India and the National University, Delhi have joined hands to organize the National Consultation on Media Law at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on September 27 and 28, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event. </b>
<p>Click to view the:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/national-consultation-on-media-law-schedule.pdf" class="internal-link">Schedule</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/consultation-paper-media-law.pdf" class="internal-link">Consultation Paper on Media Law</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-of-responses.pdf" class="internal-link">Overview of Responses</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-useful-sources.pdf" class="internal-link">List of Useful Sources</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2014-09-30T06:52:50ZNews ItemFinding Needles in Haystacks - Discussing the Role of Automated Filtering in the New Indian Intermediary Liability Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/finding-needles-in-haystacks-discussing-the-role-of-automated-filtering-in-the-new-indian-intermediary-liability-rules
<b>On the 25th of February this year The Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The new Rules broaden the scope of which entities can be considered as intermediaries to now include curated-content platforms (Netflix) as well as digital news publications. This blogpost analyzes the rule on automated filtering, in the context of the growing use of automated content moderation.
</b>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">This article first <a class="external-link" href="https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/finding-needles-in-haystacks/">appeared</a> on the KU Leuven's Centre for IT and IP (CITIP) blog. Cross-posted with permission.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">----</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mathew Sag in his 2018 <a href="https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4761&context=ndlr"><span class="s2">paper</span></a> on internet safe harbours discussed how the internet resulted in a shift from the traditional gatekeepers of knowledge (publishing houses) that used to decide what knowledge could be showcased, to a system where everybody who has access to the internet can showcase their work. A “<em>content creator</em>” today ranges from legacy media companies to any person who has access to a smartphone and an internet connection. In a similar trajectory, with the increase in websites and mobile apps and the functions that they serve, the scope of what is an internet intermediary has widened all over the world. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Who is an Intermediary?</strong></span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">In India the definition of “<em>intermediary</em>” is found under Section 2(w) of the <a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/itbill2000.pdf"><span class="s2">Information Technology (IT) Act 2000</span></a>, which defines an Intermediary as <em>“with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecoms service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-marketplaces and cyber cafes”.</em> The all-encompassing nature of the definition has allowed the dynamic nature of intermediaries to be included under the definition of the Act, and the Guidelines that have been published periodically (<a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/GSR314E_10511%25281%2529_0.pdf"><span class="s2">2011</span></a>, <a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Draft_Intermediary_Amendment_24122018.pdf"><span class="s2">2018</span></a> and <a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf"><span class="s2">2021</span></a>). With more websites and social media companies, and even more content creators online today, there is a need to look at ways in which intermediaries can remove illegal content or content that goes against their community guidelines.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Along with the definition of an intermediary, the IT Act, under Section 79, provides exemptions which grant safe harbours to internet intermediaries, from liability from third-party content, and further empowers the central government to make Rules that act as guidelines for the intermediaries to follow. The Intermediary Liability Rules hence seek to regulate content and lay down safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and internet service providers. To keep up with the changing nature of the internet and internet intermediaries, India relies on the Intermediary Liability Rules to regulate and provide a conducive environment for intermediaries. In view of this provision India has as of now published three versions of the Intermediary Liability (IL) Rules. The first Rules came out in<a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/GSR314E_10511%25281%2529_0.pdf"><span class="s2"> 2011</span></a>, followed by the introduction of draft amendments to the law in<a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Draft_Intermediary_Amendment_24122018.pdf"><span class="s2"> 2018</span></a> and finally the latest <a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf"><span class="s2">2021 </span></a>version, which would supersede the earlier Rules of 2011. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>The Growing Use of Automated Content Moderation </strong></span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">With each version of the Rules there seemed to be changes that ensured that they were abreast with the changing face of the internet and the changing nature of both content and content creator. Hence the 2018 version of the Rules showcase a push towards automated content filtering. The text of Rule 3(9) reads as follows: “<em>The Intermediary shall deploy technology based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content</em>”.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Under Rule 3(9), intermediaries were required to deploy automated tools or appropriate mechanisms to proactively identify, remove or disable public access to unlawful content. However, neither the 2018 IL Rules, nor the parent Act (the IT Act) specified which content can be deemed unlawful. The 2018 Rules also failed to establish the specific responsibilities of the intermediaries, instead relying on vague terms like “<em>appropriate mechanisms</em>” and with “<em>appropriate controls</em>”. Hence it can be seen that though the Rules mandated the use of automated tools, neither them nor the IT Act provided clear guidelines on what could be removed. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The lack of clear guidelines and list of content that can be removed had left the decision up to the intermediaries to decide which content, if not actively removed, could cost them their immunity. It has been previously documented that the lack of clear guidelines in the 2011 version of the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet"><span class="s2">Rules</span></a>, led to intermediaries over complying with take down notices, often taking down content that did not warrant it. The existing tendency to over-comply, combined with automated filtering could have resulted in a number of <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/how-india-censors-the-web-websci#:~:text=One%2520of%2520the%2520primary%2520ways,certain%2520websites%2520for%2520its%2520users."><span class="s2">unwarranted take downs</span></a>.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">While the 2018 Rules mandated the deployment of automated tools, the year 2020, (possibly due to the pandemic induced work from home safety protocols and global lockdowns) saw major social media companies announcing the move towards a fully automated system of content<a href="https://www.medianama.com/2020/03/223-facebook-content-moderation-coronavirus-medianamas-take/"><span class="s2"> moderation</span></a>. Though the use of automated content removal seems like the right step considering the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/facebook-content-moderator-who-quit-reportedly-wrote-a-blistering-letter-citing-stress-induced-insomnia-among-other-trauma/articleshow/82075608.cms"><span class="s2">trauma </span></a>that human moderators had to go through, the algorithms that are being used now to remove content are relying on the parameters, practices and data from earlier removals made by the human moderators. More recently, in India with the emergence of the second wave of the COVID19 wave, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-asks-social-media-platforms-to-remove-100-covid-19-related-posts/article34406733.ece"><span class="s2">asked </span></a>social media platforms to remove “<em>unrelated, old and out of the context images or visuals, communally sensitive posts and misinformation about COVID19 protocols</em>”.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>The New IL Rules - A ray of hope?</strong></span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s3">The 2021 version of the IL Rules provides a more nuanced approach to the use of automated content filtering compared to the earlier version. Rule 4(4) now requires only “</span><span class="s1">significant social media intermediaries” to use automated tools to identity and take down content pertaining to “child sexual abuse material”, or “depicting rape”, or any information which is identical to a content that has already been removed through a take-down notice. The Rules define a social media intermediary as “<em>intermediary which primarily or solely enables interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services”</em> .The Rules also go a step further to create another type of intermediary, the significant social media intermediary. A significant social media intermediary is defined as one “<em>having a number of registered users in India above such threshold as notified by the Central Government</em>''. Hence what can be considered as a social media intermediary that qualifies as a significant one could change at any time.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s4">Along with adding a new threshold (qualifying as a significant social media intermediary) the Rules, in contrast to the 2018 version, also emphasises the need of such removal to be </span><span class="s1">proportionate to the interests of freedom of speech and expression and privacy of users. The Rules also call for “<em>appropriate human oversight</em>” as well as a periodic review of the tools used for content moderation. The Rules by using the term “<em>shall endeavor</em>” aids in reducing the pressure on the intermediary to set up these mechanisms. This also means that the requirement is now on a best effort basis, as opposed to the word “<em>shall</em>” in the 2018 version of the Rules, which made it mandatory.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Although the Rules now narrow down the instances where automated content removal can take place, the concerns around over compliance and censorship still loom. One of the reasons for concern is that the Rules still fail to require the intermediaries to set up a mechanism for redress or for appeals to such removal. Additionally, the provision that states that automated systems could remove content that have been previously taken down, creates a cause for worry as the propensity of the intermediaries to over comply and take down content has already been documented. This then brings us back to the previous issue where the social media company’s automated systems were removing legitimate news sources. Though the 2021 Rules tries to clarify certain provisions related to automated filtering, like the addition of the safeguards, the Rules also suffer from vague provisions that could cause issues related to compliance. The use of terms such as “<em>proportionate</em>”, “<em>having regard to free speech</em>” etc. fail to lay down definitive directions for the intermediaries (in this case SSMI) to comply with. Additionally, as earlier stated, being qualified as a SSMI can change at any time, either based on the change in the number of users, or the change in the threshold of users, mandated by the government. The absence of human intervention during removal, vague guidelines and fear of losing out on safe harbour provisions, add to the already increasing trend of censorship in social media. With the use of automated means and the fast, and almost immediate removal of content would mean that certain content creators might not even be able to post their content <a href="https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online"><span class="s2">online.</span><span class="s5"> With the use of proactive filtering through automated means the content can be removed almost immediately.</span></a></span><span class="s6"> </span><span class="s1">With India’s current trend of new internet users, some of these creators would also be <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/for-the-first-time-india-has-more-rural-net-users-than-urban/articleshow/75566025.cms"><span class="s2">first time users</span></a> of the internet. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusion</strong></span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s1">The need for automated removal of content is understandable, based not only on the sheer volume of content but also the nightmare stories of the toll it takes on human content moderators, who otherwise have to go through hours of disturbing content. Though the Indian Intermediary Liability Guidelines have improved from the earlier versions in terms of moving away from mandating proactive filtering, there still needs to be consideration of how these technologies are used, and the laws should understand the shift in the definition of who a content creator is. There needs to be ways of recourse to unfair removal of content and a means to get an explanation of why the content was removed, via notices to the user. In the case of India, the notices should be in Indian languages as well, so that the people are able to understand them. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s1">In the absence of further clear guidelines, the perils of over-censorship by the intermediaries in order to stay out of trouble could lead to further stifling of not just freedom of speech but also access to information. In addition, the fear of content being taken down or even potential prosecution could mean that people resort to self-censorship, preventing them from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. We hope that the next version of the Rules take a more nuanced approach to automated content removal and ensure adequate and specific safeguards to ensure a conducive environment for both intermediaries and content creators. </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/finding-needles-in-haystacks-discussing-the-role-of-automated-filtering-in-the-new-indian-intermediary-liability-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/finding-needles-in-haystacks-discussing-the-role-of-automated-filtering-in-the-new-indian-intermediary-liability-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherShweta Mohandas and Torsha SarkarInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityArtificial Intelligence2021-08-03T07:28:53ZBlog EntryIndia ranks second globally in accessing private details of users
https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users
<b>According to the latest transparency report released by Google, India ranks second in the world for accessing private details of its citizens, only after the U.S. The Google report lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access details of users of its various services.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kul Bhushan's blog post was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thinkdigit.com/Internet/India-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private_11364.html">published in thinkdigit</a> on November 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.thinkdigit.com/latest/google.html" target="_blank">Google's</a> data reveals India had made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users in the first six months. The U.S. made 7,969 requests, while Brazil, which ranks third, made 1,566 requests during the same period. Worldwide 20,938 requests were made during the January-June period. The report says the information shared included complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The requests for accessing user data from India had grown two-fold from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011, the report points out.<br /><br />According to the report, India has been consistently sending requests to remove content which it brands as defamatory and against national security. The court orders, however, to take down content has remained almost stagnant over the years; though requests from the executive and police have grown.<br /><br />In the first six months this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. During the January-June 2010 period, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests, resulting in 125 items being taken down. Read about Google's previous transparency report here.<br /><br />"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," Times of India quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society ( CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness, as saying.<br /><br />"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," added Prakash.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users'>https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2012-11-19T04:49:23ZNews Item