The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
Minimising Legal Risks of Online Intermediaries while Protecting User Rights
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida on August 5, 2014, 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Jyoti Panday will be a panelist.</b>
<h3>Thematic Area of Interest</h3>
<ul>
<li>Internet business in the Asia Pacific region</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Consumer protection for users of global Internet services</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Internet for socio-economic development</li>
</ul>
<h3></h3>
<h3>Specific Issues of Discussions & Description</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet usage in the Asia Pacific region has been growing at a phenomenal rate and online service providers have benefited enormously from this growth. However, the region poses challenges for online service providers in terms of legal risks involved with respect to user generated content. Across the world from Europe to the US, it has been an accepted policy that service providers on the Internet cannot be held liable for user-generated content and this principle has found place in legislations enacted in this field in most countries. However, the Asian region has often seen blocking of services and websites due to user-generated content that is deemed to be illegal. There needs to be a debate on safe harbour provisions for intermediaries and the take-down provisions in legislations to ensure that the right to freedom of expression of citizens are protected while maintaining an environment that permits innovation in this space.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The workshop will also consider the different classes of intermediaries, how they differ functionally and if their differing roles should bear an impact on their responsibility with regards to protection of rights of users. Traditional models of consumer protection are based on distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of suppliers, facilitators and consumers. While developing consumer protection models for online intermediary platforms, their evolving roles and responsibilities as a supplier and a facilitator need to be considered. Intermediary platforms have also created and highlighted new consumer relations and issues that call for robust and fluid reddressal mechanisms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need to reflect on reddressal mechanisms for consumer issues pertaining to online intermediaries is also necessary, given the economic implications associated with intermediary liability. Failure to protect intermediaries stems innovation and restricts growth of start-ups and small to medium enterprises in the digital economy and has negative financial implications. Moreover, intermediaries are crucial in connecting developing countries to global markets and a failure to protect them, creates a barrier to information exchange and capacity building.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The panel will discuss the following issues:</p>
<ul>
<li>Take-down procedures and Put-back provisions used in various countries in the region</li>
<li>Safe-harbour provisions for intermediaries</li>
<li>Need for classification of Intermediaries for the purpose of a take-down regime and user rights</li>
<li>Rights of users of services provided by online intermediaries </li>
<li>Recommendations for a balanced intermediary liability regime</li>
</ul>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Expected Format and Confirmed Panel Members</h3>
<p>The workshop will be a ninety minute panel divided in two sessions of forty five minutes each. The proposed panel includes:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Mishi Choudhary</b> (Moderator) SFLC.IN Civil Society India<br />Mishi Choudhary is the founding director of SFLC India. She started working with SFLC in New York following the completion of her fellowship during which she earned her LLM from Columbia Law School and was a Stone Scholar. In addition to her LLM, she has an LLB and a bachelors degree in political science from the University of Delhi, India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jyoti Panday</b>, Center for Internet and Society, Civil Society, India <br />Jyoti Panday is Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society working on Internet governance and on issues related to the role and responsibility of intermediaries in protecting user rights and freedom of expression. She has experience in strategy, campaign management and research on issues and processes related to the development agenda, sustainability and democracy. She has completed her MSc in Public Policy from Queen Mary, University of London.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shahzad Ahmed</b>, Bytes for All Pakistan, Civil Society, Pakistan<br />Shahzad Ahmad is the Country Coordinator of Bytes for All, Pakistan and founder of the Digital Rights Institute (DRI). He is currently working on issues of ICT policy advocacy, internet rights and freedom of expression. He is a development communications expert and is at the forefront of the Internet Rights movement in Pakistan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Ahmad is a Diplo Fellow, Executive Board Member of the Association for Progressive Communications, Advisory Board Member of .PK ccTLD and a member of the International Advisory Board of Privacy International, UK. He regularly contributes to various publications and research studies on ICTs for development, freedom of expression and gender related issues. Widely travelled, he regularly participates in various forums at local, regional and global level. Mr. Ahmad maintains a strong engagement with broader civil society networks and strongly believes in participation and openness.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Professor KS Park</b>, Korea University Law School Professor <br />One of the founders of Open Net Korea, Professor Park has written and is active in internet, free speech, privacy, defamation, copyright, international business contracting, etc. He has given expert testimonies in high-profile free speech cases including the /Minerva /case, the internet real name verification case, the military’s subversive book blacklisting case, the newspaper consumers’ boycott case, and the Park Jung-Geun Retweet case. As a result, the “false news” crime and the internet real name verification laws were struck down as unconstitutional, Park Jung-Geun and Minerva acquitted, the soldiers challenging book blacklisting reinstated, the newspaper boycotters acquitted partially as to the “secondary boycotting” charge (2010-2013).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since 2006, he serves as the Executive Director of the PSPD Law Center, a non-profit entity that has organized several impact litigations in the areas of free speech, privacy, and copyright. There, the Law Center won the world’s first damage lawsuit against a copyright holder for “bad faith” takedown (2009) and the first damage lawsuit against a portal for warrantless disclosure of the user identity data to the police (2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Arvind Gupta</b>, National Head-Information and Technology, Government/ BJP Political party, India<br />National Head, BJP Information Technology Cell</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Faisal Farooqui</b>, CEO, MouthShut.com, Private Sector, India<br />Faisal Farooqui is a highly recognized entrepreneur who is among the trailblazers of his generation. Faisal has founded and managed two successful Internet and technology companies -MouthShut.com, India's largest consumer review and social media portal and Zarca Interactive, a Virginia based enterprise survey and feedback company.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ramanjit Singh Chima</b>, Google, Private Sector, India<br />Raman Jit Singh Chima serves as Policy Counsel and Government Affairs Manager for Google, based in New Delhi. He currently helps lead Google'spublic policy and government affairs work in India. He is a graduate of the Bachelors in Arts and Law (Honours) programme of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. While at the National Law School, he was Chief Editor of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. He has studied Internet regulation as an independent research fellow with the Sarai programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and contributed to Freedom House's 2009 Freedom on the Internet report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Apar Gupta</b>, Legal, India <br />Apar Gupta is a practicing lawyer in Delhi working as a Partner at the law firm of Advani & Co. His practice areas include, commercial litigation and arbitration with a focus on technology and media. Apar as a retained counsel, represents an internet industry organisation in government affairs, including consultations on draft laws and policies which effect the sector. These issues include legal risks of intermediaries, media freedom and consumer rights. He has completed his masters in law from Columbia Law School, New York and has written columns for the Business Standard, Indian Express and the Pioneer on legal issues. Apar also is a visiting faculty at National Law University, Delhi.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Full Name, Affiliation and Contact Details of the Workshop Organizer</h3>
<p>The workshop will be jointly organised by SFLC.IN and the Centre for Internet & Society, India. The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:</p>
<ol>
<li>Name: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN I<br />E: mishi@softwarefreedom.org</li>
<li>Jyoti Panday—Centre for Internet & Society, India<br />E: jyoti@cis-india.org</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/minimising-legal-risks-of-online-intermediaries-while-protecting-user-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceEventIntermediary Liability2014-07-29T07:50:51ZEventGNI and IAMAI Launch Interactive Slideshow Exploring Impact of India's Internet Laws
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gni-and-iamai-launch-interactive-slideshow-exploring-impact-of-indias-internet-laws
<b>The Global Network Initiative and the Internet and Mobile Association of India have come together to explain how India’s Internet and technology laws impact economic innovation and freedom of expression. </b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/">Global Network Initiative (GNI)</a>, and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iamai.in/">Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI)</a> have launched an interactive slide show exploring the impact of existing Internet laws on users and businesses in India. The slide show created by Newsbound, and to which Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has contributed its comments—explain the existing legislative mechanisms prevalent in India, map the challenges of the regulatory environment and highlight areas where such mechanisms can be strengthened.</p>
<p>Foregrounding the difficulties of content regulation, the slides are aimed at informing users and the public of the constraints of current legal mechanisms in place, including safe harbour and take down and notice provisions. Highlighting Section 79(3) and the Intermediary Liability Rules issued in 2011, the slide show identifies some of the challenges faced by Internet platforms, such as the broad interpretation of the legislation by the executive branch.</p>
<p>Challenges governing Internet platforms highlighted in the slide show include uniform Terms of Service that do not consider the type of service being provided by the platform, uncertain requirements for taking down content and compliance obligations related to information disclosure. Further the issues of over compliance and misuse of the legal notice and take down system introduced under Section 79 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011.</p>
<p>The Rules were created with the purpose of providing guidelines for the ‘post-publication redressal mechanism expression as envisioned in the Constitution of India'. However, since their introduction, the Rules have been criticised extensively, by both the national and the international media on account of not conforming to principles of natural justice and freedom of expression. Critics have pointed out that by not recognising the different functions performed by the different intermediaries and by not providing safeguards against misuse of such mechanism for suppressing legitimate expression, the Rules have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Under the current Rules, the third party provider/creator of information is not given a chance to be heard by the intermediary, nor is there a requirement to give a reasoned decision by the intermediary to the creator whose content has been taken down. The take down procedure also, does not have any provisions for restoring the removed information, such as providing a counter notice filing mechanism or appealing to a higher authority. Further, the content criteria for removal of content includes terms like 'disparaging' and 'objectionable', which are not defined and prima facie seem to be beyond the reasonable restrictions envisioned by the Constitution of India. With uncertainty in content criteria and no safeguards to prevent abuse complainant may send frivolous complaints and suppress legitimate expressions without any fear of repercussions.</p>
<p>Most importantly, the redressal mechanism under the Rules shifts the burden of censorship, previously, the exclusive domain of the judiciary or the executive, and makes it the responsibility of private intermediaries. Often, private intermediaries, do not have sufficient legal resources to subjectively determine the legitimacy of a legal claim, resulting in over compliance to limit liability. The slide show cites the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet">2011 CIS research carried out by Rishabh Dara</a> to determine whether the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression, towards highlighting the issue of over compliance and self censorship.</p>
<p>The initiative is timely, given the change of guard in India, and stresses, not only the economic impact of fixing the Internet legal framework, but also the larger impact on users rights and freedom of expression. The initiative calls for a legal environment for the Internet that enables innovation, protects the rights of users, and provides clear rules and regulations for businesses large and small.</p>
<p>See the slideshow here: <a href="http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/india">How India’s Internet Laws Can Help Propel the Country Forward</a></p>
<p><strong>Other GNI reports and resources: </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf">Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf">Strengthening Protections for Online Platforms Could Add Billions to India’s GDP</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gni-and-iamai-launch-interactive-slideshow-exploring-impact-of-indias-internet-laws'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gni-and-iamai-launch-interactive-slideshow-exploring-impact-of-indias-internet-laws</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityChilling EffectInformation Technology2014-07-17T12:01:01ZBlog EntryReading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights
<b>This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a><span> The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>I have read and agree to the terms</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a> the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a> And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a>, which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>My right is bigger than yours</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. <a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Data and whose rights?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a> Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn13">[13]</a> The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn14">[14]</a>. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn15">[15]</a> The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>To blame or not to blame</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn16">[16]</a> The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn17">[17]</a> He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Conclusion </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a> 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref14">[14]</a> European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref16">[16]</a> 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiSocial MediaConsumer RightsGoogleinternet and societyPrivacyTransparency and AccountabilityIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFacebookData ProtectionPoliciesSafety2014-07-04T06:31:37ZBlog EntryAn Evidence based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework: Workshop at IGF
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework
<b>CIS is organising a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The workshop will be an opportunity to present and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition of intermediaries and their responsibilities across jurisdictions and technologies and contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, India and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, USA, will be organising a workshop to analyse the role of intermediary platforms in relation to freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of association at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. <span>The aim of the workshop is to highlight the increasing importance of digital rights and broad legal protections of stakeholders in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The workshop will discuss public policy issues associated with Internet intermediaries, in particular their roles, legal responsibilities and related liability limitations in context of the evolving nature and role of intermediaries in the Internet ecosystem. distinct</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Online Intermediaries: Setting the context</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet has facilitated unprecedented access to information and amplified avenues for expression and engagement by removing the limits of geographic boundaries and enabling diverse sources of information and online communities to coexist. Against the backdrop of a broadening base of users, the role of intermediaries that enable economic, social and political interactions between users in a global networked communication is ubiquitous. Intermediaries are essential to the functioning of the Internet as many producers and consumers of content on the internet rely on the action of some third party–the so called intermediary. Such intermediation ranges from the mere provision of connectivity, to more advanced services such as providing online storage spaces for data, acting as platforms for storage and sharing of user generated content (UGC), or platforms that provides links to other internet content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Online intermediaries enhance economic activity by reducing costs, inducing competition by lowering the barriers for participation in the knowledge economy and fuelling innovation through their contribution to the wider ICT sector as well as through their key role in operating and maintaining Internet infrastructure to meet the network capacity demands of new applications and of an expanding base of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediary platforms also provide social benefits, by empowering users and improving choice through social and participative networks, or web services that enable creativity and collaboration amongst individuals. By enabling platforms for self-expression and cooperation, intermediaries also play a critical role in establishing digital trust, protection of human rights such as freedom of speech and expression, privacy and upholding fundamental values such as freedom and democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the economic and social benefits of online intermediaries are conditional to a framework for protection of intermediaries against legal liability for the communication and distribution of content which they enable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary Liability</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the last decade, right holders, service providers and Internet users have been locked in a debate on the potential liability of online intermediaries. The debate has raised global concerns on issues such as, the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be held responsible for content produced by third parties using their Internet infrastructure and how the resultant liability would affect online innovation and the free flow of knowledge in the information economy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the impact of their services on communications, intermediaries find themselves as either directly liable for their actions, or indirectly (or “secondarily”) liable for the actions of their users. Requiring intermediaries to monitor the legality of the online content poses an insurmountable task. Even if monitoring the legality of content by intermediaries against all applicable legislations were possible, the costs of doing so would be prohibitively high. Therefore, placing liability on intermediaries can deter their willingness and ability to provide services, hindering the development of the internet itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Economics of intermediaries are dependent on scale and evaluating the legality of an individual post exceeds the profit from hosting the speech, and in the absence of judicial oversight can lead to a private censorship regime. Intermediaries that are liable for content or face legal exposure, have powerful incentives, to police content and limit user activity to protect themselves. The result is curtailing of legitimate expression especially where obligations related to and definition of illegal content is vague. Content policing mandates impose significant compliance costs limiting the innovation and competiveness of such platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, placing liability on intermediaries has a chilling effect on freedom of expression online. Gate keeping obligations by service providers threaten democratic participation and expression of views online, limiting the potential of individuals and restricting freedoms. Imposing liability can also indirectly lead to the death of anonymity and pseudonymity, pervasive surveillance of users' activities, extensive collection of users' data and ultimately would undermine the digital trust between stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus effectively, imposing liability for intermediaries creates a chilling effect on Internet activity and speech, create new barriers to innovation and stifles the Internet's potential to promote broader economic and social gains. To avoid these issues, legislators have defined 'safe harbours', limiting the liability of intermediaries under specific circumstances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Online intermediaries do not have direct control of what information is or information are exchanged via their platform and might not be aware of illegal content per se. A key framework for online intermediaries, such limited liability regimes provide exceptions for third party intermediaries from liability rules to address this asymmetry of information that exists between content producers and intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, it is important to note, that significant differences exist concerning the subjects of these limitations, their scope of provisions and procedures and modes of operation. The 'notice and takedown' procedures are at the heart of the safe harbour model and can be subdivided into two approaches:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">a. Vertical approach where liability regime applies to specific types of content exemplified in the US Digital Copyright Millennium Act</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">b. Horizontal approach based on the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) where different levels of immunity are granted depending on the type of activity at issue</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Current framework </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Globally, three broad but distinct models of liability for intermediaries have emerged within the Internet ecosystem:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. Strict liability model under which intermediaries are liable for third party content used in countries such as China and Thailand</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Safe harbour model granting intermediaries immunity, provided their compliance on certain requirements</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. Broad immunity model that grants intermediaries broad or conditional immunity from liability for third party content and exempts them from any general requirement to monitor content. <b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the models described above can provide useful guidance for the drafting or the improvement of the current legislation, they are limited in their scope and application as they fail to account for the different roles and functions of intermediaries. Legislators and courts are facing increasing difficulties, in interpreting these regulations and adapting them to a new economic and technical landscape that involves unprecedented levels user generated content and new kinds of and online intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The nature and role of intermediaries change considerably across jurisdictions, and in relation to the social, economic and technical contexts. In addition to the dynamic nature of intermediaries the different categories of Internet intermediaries‘ are frequently not clear-cut, with actors often playing more than one intermediation role. Several of these intermediaries offer a variety of products and services and may have number of roles, and conversely, several of these intermediaries perform the same function. For example , blogs, video services and social media platforms are considered to be 'hosts'. Search engine providers have been treated as 'hosts' and 'technical providers'.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This limitations of existing models in recognising that different types of intermediaries perform different functions or roles and therefore should have different liability, poses an interesting area for research and global deliberation. Establishing classification of intermediaries, will also help analyse existing patterns of influence in relation to content for example when the removal of content by upstream intermediaries results in undue over-blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Distinguishing intermediaries on the basis of their roles and functions in the Internet ecosystem is critical to ensuring a balanced system of liability and addressing concerns for freedom of expression. Rather than the highly abstracted view of intermediaries as providing a single unified service of connecting third parties, the definition of intermediaries must expand to include the specific role and function they have in relation to users' rights. A successful intermediary liability regime must balance the needs of producers, consumers, affected parties and law enforcement, address the risk of abuses for political or commercial purposes, safeguard human rights and contribute to the evolution of uniform principles and safeguards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Towards an evidence based intermediary liability policy framework</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This workshop aims to bring together leading representatives from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups to discuss liability related issues and ways to enhance Internet users’ trust.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Questions to address at the panel include:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. What are the varying definitions of intermediaries across jurisdictions?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. What are the specific roles and functions that allow for classification of intermediaries?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. How can we ensure the legal framework keeps pace with technological advances and the changing roles of intermediaries?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4. What are the gaps in existing models in balancing innovation, economic growth and human rights?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. What could be the respective role of law and industry self-regulation in enhancing trust?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. How can we enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in this space?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Confirmed Panel:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technical Community: Malcolm Hutty: Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA)<br />Civil Society: Gabrielle Guillemin: Article19<br />Academic: Nicolo Zingales: Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University<br />Intergovernmental: Rebecca Mackinnon: Consent of the Networked, UNESCO project<br />Civil Society: Anriette Esterhuysen: Association for Progressive Communication (APC)<br />Civil Society: Francisco Vera: Advocacy Director: Derechos Digitale<br />Private Sector: Titi Akinsanmi: Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Sub-Saharan Africa<br />Legal: Martin Husovec: MaxPlanck Institute</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Moderator(s): </span><span>Giancarlo Frosio, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and </span><span>Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Remote Moderator: </span><span>Anubha Sinha, New Delhi</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotihuman rightsDigital Governanceinternet governanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance ForumHuman Rights OnlineIntermediary LiabilityPoliciesMulti-stakeholder2014-07-04T06:41:10ZBlog EntryEuropean Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties
<b>The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that an "an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.” The decision adds to the conundrum of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression, protecting personal data and intermediary liability.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling is expected to have considerable impact on reputation and privacy related takedown requests as under the decision, data subjects may approach the operator directly seeking removal of links to web pages containing personal data. Currently, users prove whether data needs to be kept online—the new rules reverse the burden of proof, placing an obligation on companies, rather than users for content regulation.</p>
<h3>A win for privacy?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ ruling addresses Mario Costeja González complaint filed in 2010, against Google Spain and Google Inc., requesting that personal data relating to him appearing in search results be protected and that data which was no longer relevant be removed. Referring to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML">the Directive 95/46/EC</a> of the European Parliament, the court said, that Google and other search engine operators should be considered 'controllers' of personal data. Following the decision, Google will be required to consider takedown requests of personal data, regardless of the fact that processing of such data is carried out without distinction in respect of information other than the personal data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision—which cannot be appealed—raises important of questions of how this ruling will be applied in practice and its impact on the information available online in countries outside the European Union. The decree forces search engine operators such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing to make judgement calls on the fairness of the information published through their services that reach over 500 million people across the twenty eight nation bloc of EU.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ECJ rules that search engines 'as a general rule,' should place the right to privacy above the right to information by the public. Under the verdict, links to irrelevant and out of date data need to be erased upon request, placing search engines in the role of controllers of information—beyond the role of being an arbitrator that linked to data that already existed in the public domain. The verdict is directed at highlighting the power of search engines to retrieve controversial information while limiting their capacity to do so in the future.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling calls for maintaining a balance in addressing the legitimate interest of internet users in accessing personal information and upholding the data subject’s fundamental rights, but does not directly address either issues. The court also recognised, that the data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life. Acknowledging that data belongs to the individual and is not the right of the company, European Commissioner Viviane Reding, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=304206613078842&id=291423897690447&_ga=1.233872279.883261846.1397148393">hailed the verdict</a>, "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Court stated that if data is deemed irrelevant at the time of the case, even if it has been lawfully processed initially, it must be removed and that the data subject has the right to approach the operator directly for the removal of such content. The liability issue is further complicated by the fact, that search engines such as Google do not publish the content rather they point to information that already exists in the public domain—raising questions of the degree of liability on account of third party content displayed on their services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ ruling is based on the case originally filed against Google, Spain and it is important to note that, González argued that searching for his name linked to two pages originally published in 1998, on the website of the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. The Spanish Data Protection Agency did not require La Vanguardia to take down the pages, however, it did order Google to remove links to them. Google appealed this decision, following which the National High Court of Spain sought advice from the European court. The definition of Google as the controller of information, raises important questions related to the distinction between liability of publishers and the liability of processors of information such as search engines.</p>
<h3>The 'right to be forgotten'</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision also brings to the fore, the ongoing debate and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/04/britain-opt-out-right-to-be-forgotten-law">fragmented opinions within the EU</a>, on the right of the individual to be forgotten. The <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16677370">'right to be forgotten</a>' has evolved from the European Commission's wide-ranging plans of an overhaul of the commission's 1995 Data Protection Directive. The plans for the law included allowing people to request removal of personal data with an obligation of compliance for service providers, unless there were 'legitimate' reasons to do otherwise. Technology firms rallying around issues of freedom of expression and censorship, have expressed concerns about the reach of the bill. Privacy-rights activist and European officials have upheld the notion of the right to be forgotten, highlighting the right of the individual to protect their honour and reputation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These issues have been controversial amidst EU member states with the UK's Ministry of Justice claiming the law 'raises unrealistic and unfair expectations' and has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/04/britain-opt-out-right-to-be-forgotten-law">sought to opt-out</a> of the privacy laws. The Advocate General of the European Court <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=362663#Footref91">Niilo Jääskinen's opinion</a>, that the individual's right to seek removal of content should not be upheld if the information was published legally, contradicts the verdict of the ECJ ruling. The European Court of Justice's move is surprising for many and as Richard Cumbley, information-management and data protection partner at the law firm Linklaters <a href="http://turnstylenews.com/2014/05/13/europe-union-high-court-establishes-the-right-to-be-forgotten/">puts it</a>, “Given that the E.U. has spent two years debating this right as part of the reform of E.U. privacy legislation, it is ironic that the E.C.J. has found it already exists in such a striking manner."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The economic implications of enforcing a liability regime where search engine operators censor legal content in their results aside, the decision might also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and access to information. Google <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/13/right-to-be-forgotten-eu-court-google-search-results">called the decision</a> “a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general,” and that the company would take time to analyze the implications. While the implications of the decision are yet to be determined, it is important to bear in mind that while decisions like these are public, the refinements that Google and other search engines will have to make to its technology and the judgement calls on the fairness of the information available online are not public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ press release is available <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf">here</a> and the actual judgement is available <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&lg=&dates=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-131%252F12&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-05-14T14:18:46ZBlog EntryThe Take Down of Free Speech Online
https://cis-india.org/news/newslaundry-april-1-2014-somi-das-the-take-down-of-free-speech-online
<b>As part of a study to access rate of compliance, in 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore sent frivolous “take down” requests to seven prominent intermediaries. The study showed exactly how easy it is to take down online content. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.newslaundry.com/2014/04/01/the-take-down-of-free-speech-online/">Newslaundry</a> on April 1, 2014. CIS research on Intermediary Liabilities is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS found that six out of the seven intermediaries “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" target="_blank">over complied</a>” with the notices. Facts such as these about intermediary liability were discussed in a panel discussion “Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression in India” in Delhi on March 27, 2014 organised by Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University in collaboration with the Global Network Initiative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The panel also included Professor Ranbir Singh, Vice Chancellor of NLU, Jermyn Brooks<b><i> (</i></b>Independent Chair – Global Network Initiative, Washington DC), Shyam Divan (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India) and SiddharthVaradarajan (Journalist). They discussed proxy censorship by government through private players and how e-business’ lose out on opportunities because of the current legal framework in the country within which intermediaries have to function.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to<a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1752240/" target="_blank"> Section 2(1)(w) of The Information Technology Act, 2000,</a> “intermediary”- with respect to any particular electronic message -signifies any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message.According to Rishab Dara, recipient of the Google policy Fellowship 2011, in an article titled, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" target="_blank">Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet</a>, “intermediaries are widely recognised as essential cogs in the wheel of exercising the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. Most major jurisdictions around the world have introduced legislations for limiting intermediary liability in order to ensure that this wheel does not stop spinning”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The “safe harbor”or what is also known asIntermediary Liability Laws according to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act are given below:</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediaries not to be Liable in Certain Cases</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him. </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if—</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(b) the intermediary does not—</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> (i) initiate the transmission,</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if—</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or othorise in the commission of the unlawful act;</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under the Act, the intermediary needs to act on a complaint within 36 hours of a take down notice -failing which they will be liable to legal action if the case is taken to the court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shyam Divan spoke about the absurdity of the 36-hour turnaround time that an intermediary has between receiving a complaint and taking down the content. According to him, without any kind of legal option to fall back on, intermediaries decide to comply with such take down notices fearing “serious penalties and possibility of prosecution” which results in “indirect censorship”. He also said, “Domestic constitution in itself is not going to be sufficient”. “Meta-constitutions” which are transnational and have uniform laws across countries could be a possible solution to the current confusion as the internet is a global phenomenon and it would ensure that “the extent of our online rights would not be limited to the constitution of the country”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Giving the example of hate speech, Siddharth Varadarajan, mentioned the Indian executive’s different approaches towards different mediums. Referring to hate speeches made during the 1993 Bombay riots by Shiv Sena leaders and those made during the 2002 Gujarat riots, he said, “Hate speech never gets prosecuted when made amid a physical crowd in a volatile situation.I can understand why politicians won’t be prosecuted but why so much sensitivity on online content. This paradox is worth reflecting on.Despite its limited reach, the executive reacts in such a hyper-sensitive manner”.He adds that as the editor of a news website one faces daily problems in taking decisions on online content especially on comment moderation and whether the website would be responsible for a certain comment made by a reader. Echoing Shyam Divan’s views,he said that in India more than the punishment, when a case is filed, the legal process itself becomes a punishment, which forces Internet Service Providers to comply with requests of blocking online content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Global Network Initiative is a Washington-based organisation that provides a framework for companies to deal with governments requesting censorship or surveillance of online content, “rooted in international standards legal framework also interesting people”. According to a report released by it, “provided that the existing safe harbour regime is improved, intermediaries can become a significant part of the economy and their GDP contribution may increase to more than 1.3 per cent by 2015. The potential corresponds to $41 billion by 2015”.Jermyn Brooks<b><i>,</i></b>Independent Chair of GNI,argued that instead of focusing all efforts on ensuring that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 gets struck down by Courts for its unconstitutionality, there should also be a movement to effect policy changes through the amendment of the law. According to him, such a proposition would be more lucrative for a government looking for “re-invigoration of economic growth in India”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion was significant in the light that a number of cases related to the IT Act and freedom of online speech will be heard in the Supreme Court in the coming months. A petition by <i>Mouthshut.com </i>challenges the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 “which effectively creates a notice and takedown regime for content hosted by intermediaries”. Another important case up for hearing is a petition by Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrashekhar,“which also challenges these rules on grounds that they are ambiguous, require private parties to subjectively assess objectionable content, and that they undermine the safe harbour exemptions from liability granted to intermediaries by section 79 of the IT Act”. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL<i>) </i>has challenged the Intermediaries Guidelines rules as well as the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by the Public Rules 2009. “This petition has pointed to the lack of transparency in the blocking procedure, which does not currently offer the public any notice or reasons for the blocking.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The cases pending before the Supreme Court will have a significant impact on the freedom of expression. We should never take our rights for granted – the interpretation of these rights needs to be consistent with their spirit”, said Professor Ranbir Singh.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Citing the recent example of the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-Penguin-another-publisher-recalls-Wendy-Donigers-book/articleshow/31426314.cms" target="_blank">Wendy Doniger</a> episode, Varadarajan says, “If Penguin chooses to pack up at the District court level, you know how Internet Service Providers would react to take down notices…Specific targeting of online speech would ultimately have a negative impact on the traditional media”. And that is the crux of the matter. In the absence of intermediate liability not being limited, online censorship and the curtailment of the freedom of speech will become far easier and will only worsen.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/newslaundry-april-1-2014-somi-das-the-take-down-of-free-speech-online'>https://cis-india.org/news/newslaundry-april-1-2014-somi-das-the-take-down-of-free-speech-online</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-04-06T05:19:50ZNews ItemIntermediary Liability Resources
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources
<b>We bring you a list of intermediary resources as part of research on internet governance. This blog post will be updated on an ongoing basis.</b>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation. </b>The Centre for Democracy and Technology. December 2012, available at: <a href="https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf">https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf</a>: This paper analyses the impact that intermediary liability regimes have on freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation. In doing so, the paper highlights different models of intermediary liability regimes, reviews different technological means of restricting access to content, and provides recommendations for intermediary liability regimes and provides alternative ways of addressing illegal content online.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability:</b> Article 19. 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf">http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf:</a>This Policy Document reviews different components of intermediary liability and highlights the challenges and risks that current models of liability have to online freedom of expression. Relying on international standards for freedom of expression and comparative law, the document includes recommendations and alternative models that provide stronger protection for freedom of expression. The key recommendation in the document include: web hosting providers or hosts should be immune from liability to third party content if they have not modified the content, privatised enforcement should not be a model and removal orders should come only from courts or adjudicatory bodies, the model of notice to notice should replace notice and takedown regimes, in cases of alleged serious criminality clear conditions should be in place and defined.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries:</b> Prepared by Daniel Seng for WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries.pdf:This Report reviews the intermediary liability regimes and associated laws in place across fifteen different contexts with a focus on civil copyright liability for internet intermediaries. The Report seeks to find similarities and differences across the regimes studied and highlight principles and components in different that can be used in international treaties and instruments, upcoming policies, and court decisions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom of Expression, Indirect Censorship, & Liability for Internet Intermediaries.</b> The Electronic Frontier Foundation. February 2011, available at: <a href="http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf">http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf</a>:This presentation was created for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum in Chile and highlights that for freedom of expression to be protected, clear legal protections for internet intermediaries are needed and advocates for a regime that provides blanket immunity to intermediaries or is based on judicial takedown notices.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Contracted by the European Commission.</b> 2007, available at: <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf</a>. This Report provides insight on the application of the intermediary liability sections of the EU e-commerce directive and studies the impact of the regulations under the Directive on the functioning of intermediary information society services. To achieve this objective, the study identifies relavant case law across member states, calls out and evaluates developing trends across Member States, and draws conclusions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Intermediary Liability: Identifying Best Practices for Africa.</b> Nicolo Zingales for the Association for Progressive Communications, available at: <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf">https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf</a>: This background paper seeks to identify challenges and opportunities in addressing intermediary liability for countries in the African Union and recommend safeguards that can be included in emerging intermediary liability regimes in the context of human rights. The paper also reviews different models of intermediary liability and discusses the limitations, scope, and modes of operation of each model. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda</b>: An uncertain terrain. Association for Progressive Communications. October 2012, available at: <a href="http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain">http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain</a>:This Report reviews intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda – providing background to the political context, relevant legislation, and present challenges . In doing so, the Report provides insight into how intermediary liability has changed in recent years in these contexts and explores past and present debates on intermediary liability. The Report concludes with recommendations for stakeholders affected by intermediary liability. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Fragmentation of intermediary liability in the UK</b>. Daithi Mac Sithigh. 2013, available at: <a href="http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT">http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT</a>. This article looks at the application of the Electronic Commerce Directive across Europe and argues that it is being intermixed and subsequently replaced with provisions from national legislation and provisions of law from area specific legislation. Thus, the article argues that systems for intermediary liability are diving into multiple systems – for example for content related to copyright intermediaries are being placed with new responsibilities while for content related to defamation, there is a reducing in the liability that intermediaries are held to. </li>
<li><b>Regimes of Legal Liability for Online Intermediaries: an Overview</b>. OECD, available at: <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf</a>. This article provides an overview of different intermediary liability regimes including EU and US. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b> Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose</b>. GNI. 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf</a>. This Report argues that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 are not adequate to deal with ICT innovations , and argues that the current liability regime in India is hurting the Indian internet economy. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary Liability in India</b>. Centre for Internet and Society. 2011, available at: <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf</a>. This report reviews and ‘tests’ the effect of the Indian intermediary liability on freedom of expression. The report concludes that the present regime in India has a chilling effect on free expression and offers recommendations on how the Indian regime can be amended to protect this right. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Liability of Internet Service providers and the exercise of the freedom of expression in Latin America have been explored in detail through the course of this research paper by Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and J. Carlos Lara Galvez. The paper explores the efficacy and the implementation of proposals to put digital communication channels under the oversight of certain State sponsored institutions in varying degrees. The potential consequence of legal intervention in media and digital platforms, on the development of individual rights and freedoms has been addressed through the course of this study. The paper tries to arrive at relevant conclusions with respect to the enforcement of penalties that seek to redress the liability of communication intermediaries and the mechanism that may be used to oversee the balance between the interests at stake as well as take comparative experiences into account. The paper also analyses the liability of technical facilitators of communications while at the same time attempting to define a threshold beyond which the interference into the working of these intermediaries may constitute an offence of the infringement of the privacy of users. Ultimately, it aims to derive a balance between the necessity for intervention, the right of the users who communicate via the internet and interests of the economic actors who may be responsible for the service: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf">http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf</a></li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://crm.apc.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=191">Click to read the newsletter</a> from the Association of Progressive Communications. The summaries for the reports can be found below:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Intermediaries: The Dilemma of Liability in Africa. APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/</a>. This report summarizes the challenges facing internet content regulators in Africa, and the effects of these regulations on the state of the internet in Africa. Many African countries do not protect intermediaries from potential liability, so some intermediaries are too afraid to transmit or host content on the internet in those countries. The report calls for a universal rights protection for internet intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">APC’s Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Intermediary Liability: APC, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/</a>. This report addresses common questions pertaining to internet intermediaries, which are entities which provide services that enable people to use the internet, from network providers to search engines to comments sections on blogs. Specifically, the report outlines different models of intermediary liability, defining two main models. The “Generalist” model intermediary liability is judged according to the general rules of civil and criminal law, while the “Safe Harbour” model protects intermediaries with a legal safe zone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Developments in South Africa: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri</a>. This interview with researchers Alex Comninos and Andrew Rens goes into detail about the challenges of intermediary in South Africa. The researchers discuss the balance that needs to be struck between insulating intermediaries from a fear of liability and protecting women’s rights in an environment that is having trouble dealing with violence against women. They also discuss South Africa’s three strikes policy for those who pirate material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Preventing Hate Speech Online In Kenya: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli</a>. This interview with Grace Githaiga investigates the uncertain fate of internet intermediaries under Kenya’s new regime. The new government has mandated everyone to register their SIM cards, and indicated that it was monitoring text messages and flagging those that were deemed risky. This has led to a reduction in the amount of hate speech via text messages. Many intermediaries, such as newspaper comments sections, have established rules on how readers should post on their platforms. Githaiga goes on to discuss the issue of surveillance and the lack of a data protection law in Kenya, which she sees as the most pressing internet issue in Kenya.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws in Uganda Make Internet Providers More Vulnerable to Liability and State Intervention: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne</a>. In an interview, Lilian Nalwoga discusses Uganda’s recent anti-pornography law that can send intermediaries to prison. The Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 criminalizes any sort of association with any form of pornography, and targets ISPs, content providers, and developers, making them liable for content that goes through their systems. This makes being an intermediary extremely risky in Uganda. The other issue with the law is a vague definition of pornography. Nalwoga also explains the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 bans any promotion or recognition of homosexual relations, and the monitoring technology the government is using to enforce these laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New Laws Affecting Intermediary Liability in Nigeria: APCNews, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria">http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria</a>. Gbenga Sesan, executive director of Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, expounds on the latest trends in Nigerian intermediary liability. The Nigerian Communications Commission has a new law that mandates ISPs store users data for at least here years, and wants to make content hosts responsible for what users do on their networks. Additionally, in Nigeria, internet users register with their real name and prove that you are the person who is registration. Sesan goes on to discuss the lack of safe harbor provisions for intermediaries and the remaining freedom of anonymity on social networks in Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Policies That Affect Africans: APC News, May 2014, available at: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af">http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af</a>. The Associsation for Progressive Communcations interviews researcher Nicolo Zingales about the trend among African governments establishing further regulations to control the flow of information on the internet and hold intermediaries liable for content they circulate. Zingales criticizes intermediary liability for “creating a system of adverse incentives for free speech.” He goes on to offer examples of intermediaries and explain the concept of “safe harbor” legislative frameworks. Asked to identify best and worst practices in Africa, he highlights South Africa’s safe harbor as a good practice, and mentions the registration of users via ID cards as a worst practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Towards Internet Intermediary Responsibility: Carly Nyst, November 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility">http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility</a>. Nyst argues for a middle ground between competing goals in internet regulation in Africa. Achieving one goal, of protecting free speech through internet intermediaries seems at odds with the goal of protecting women’s rights and limiting hate speech, because one demands intermediaries be protected in a legal safe harbor and the other requires intermediaries be vigilant and police their content. Nyst’s solution is not intermediary liability but <i>responsibility</i>, a role defined by empowerment, and establishing an intermediary responsibility to promote positive gender attitudes.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherelonnaiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityPrivacy2014-07-03T06:45:48ZBlog EntryYou Have the Right to Remain Silent
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/down-to-earth-july-17-2013-nishant-shah-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent
<b>Reflecting upon the state of freedom of speech and expression in India, in the wake of the shut-down of the political satire website narendramodiplans.com.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nishant Shah's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/you-have-right-remain-silent">column was published in Down to Earth</a> on July 17, 2013.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It took less than a day for narendramodiplans.com, a political satire website that had more than 60,000 hits in the 20 hours of its existence, to be taken down. A simple webpage that showed a smiling picture of Narendra Modi, the touted candidate for India’s next Prime Ministerial campaign, flashing his now trademark ‘V’ for <span><s>Vengeance</s> </span> Victory sign. At the first glimpse it looked like another smart media campaign by the net-savvy minister who has already made use of the social web quite effectively, to connect with his constituencies and influence the younger voting population in the country. Below the image of Mr. Modi was a text that said, "For a detailed explanation of how Mr. Narendra Modi plans to run the nation if elected to the house as a Prime Minister and also for his view/perspective on 2002 riots please click the link below." The button, reminiscent of 'sale' signs on shops that offer permanent discounts, promised to reveal, for once and for all, the puppy plight of Mr. Modi's politics and his plans for the country that he seeks to lead.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, when one tried to click on the button, hoping, at least for a manifesto that combined the powers of Machiavelli with the sinister beauty of Kafka, it proved to be an impossible task. The button wiggled, and jiggled, and slithered all over the page, running away from the mouse following it. Referencing the layers of evasive answers, the engineered Public Relations campaigns that try to obfuscate the history to some of the most pointed questions that have been posited to the Modi government through judicial and public forums, the button never stayed still enough to actually reveal the promised answers. For people who are familiar with the history of such political satire and protest online would immediately recognise that this wasn’t the most original of ideas. In fact, it was borrowed from another website - <a href="http://www.thepmlnvision.com/" title="http://www.thepmlnvision.com/">http://www.thepmlnvision.com/</a> that levelled similar accusations of lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. Another instance, which is now also shut down, had a similar deployment where the webpage claimed to give a comprehensive view into Rahul Gandhi’s achievements, to question his proclaimed intentions of being the next prime-minister. In short, this is an internet meme, where a simple web page and a java script allowed for a critical commentary on the future of the next elections and the strengthening battle between #feku and #pappu that has already taken epic proportions on Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The early demise of these two websites (please do note, when you click on the links that the Nawaz Sharif website is still working) warns us of the tightening noose around freedom of speech and expression that politicos are responsible for in India. It has been a dreary last couple of years already, with the passing of the <a href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india" target="_blank">Intermediaries Liabilities Rules</a> as an amendment to the IT Act of India, <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/spy-in-the-web/888509/1" target="_blank">Dr. Sibal proposing to pre-censor the social web</a> in a quest to save the face of erring political figures,<a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/two-girls-arrested-for-facebook-post-questioning-bal-thackeray-shutdown-of-mumbai-get-bail/1033177/" target="_blank"> teenagers being arrested for voicing political dissent</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Trivedi" target="_blank">artists being prosecuted</a> for exercising their rights to question the state of governance in our country. Despite battles to keep the web an open space that embodies the democratic potentials and the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression in the country, it has been a losing fight to keep up with the ad hoc and dictatorial mandates that seem to govern the web.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Namo.png" alt="Narendra Modi Plans" class="image-inline" title="Narendra Modi Plans" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Above is a screen shot from narendramodiplans.com website</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have no indication of why this latest piece of satirical expression, which should be granted immunity as a work of art, if not as an individual’s right to free speech, was suddenly taken down. The website now has a message that says, “I quit. In a country with freedom of speech, I assumed that I was allowed to make decent satire on any politician more particularly if it is constructive. Clearly, I was wrong.” The web is already abuzz with conspiracy theories, each sounding scarier than the other because they seem so plausible and possible in a country that has easily sacrificed our right to free speech and expression at the altar of political egos. And whether you subscribe to any of the theories or not, whether your sympathies lie with the BJP or with the UPA, whether or not you approve of the political directions that the country seems to be headed in, there is no doubt that you should be as agitated as I am, about the fact that we are in a fast-car to blanket censorship, and we are going there in style.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What happens online is not just about this one website or the one person or the one political party – it is a reflection on the rising surveillance and bully state that presumes that making voices (and sometimes people) invisible, is enough to resolve the problems that they create. And what happens on the web is soon going to also affect the ways in which we live our everyday lives. So the next time, you call some friends over for dinner, and then sit arguing about the state of politics in the country, make sure your windows are all shut, you are wearing tin-foil hats and if possible, direct all conversations to the task of finally <a href="http://bollywoodjournalist.com/2013/07/08/desperately-seeking-mamta-kulkarni/" target="_blank">finding Mamta Kulkarni</a>. Because anything else that you say might either be censored or land you in a soup, and the only recourse you might have would be a website that shows the glorious political figures of the country, with a sign that says “To defend your right to free speech and expression, please click here”. And you know that you are never going to be able to click on that sign. Ever.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/down-to-earth-july-17-2013-nishant-shah-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/down-to-earth-july-17-2013-nishant-shah-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2013-07-22T06:59:53ZBlog EntryIndia- EU FTA: A Note on the Copyright Issues
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues
<b>In this blog post, Nehaa Chaudhari gives us an overview of some of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the copyright issues identified therein. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues.pdf" class="internal-link">Click to download the India-EU FTA: A Note on Copyright Issues</a> (PDF, 205 Kb)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations dating back to 2007, and, more recently, with parties being unable to make substantial progress on the Indo-EU FTA<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> this note presents an overview on some of the provisions of the FTA and the copyright issues identified therein. This note deals with the issues on two levels- first to examine the impact of intellectual property right provisions in FTAs in general and second to apply these generic principles to the Indo- EU FTA specifically.</p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Investment agreements, of which bilateral investment treaties are a part, and investment chapters in various FTAs often result in an increase in the effective levels of intellectual property protection in one of the countries that is a part to the agreement. This can be done either explicitly, where ‘investment’ may be defined to include IP, or implicitly, for instance, through an expropriation provision.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> This has concurrently witnessed the growing realization that the promotion of these increased IP standards is not suited to the need of developing countries. Therefore, it has been observed<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a>that there is now an attempt by the developed countries to use FTAs as a forum to push for higher standards of IP protection in developing countries, and to restrict the scope of the flexibilities offered by TRIPS, most notably in the sectors of protection of plant varieties, patents and access to medicine, farmers rights and access to information.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a>This approach is inherently problematic, because it then infringes on the developing countries’ ability to achieve their developmental objectives.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Dismantling the Arguments In Favour of Increased IP Protection</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A prevalent view of thought is that in order to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), developing countries would have to increase their IP protection. This section of the paper seeks to argue that this might not necessarily be the case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An illustration of the aforesaid proposition may be <i>Heald’s </i>criticism<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a> levied on <i>Mansfield’s </i>paper<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6]</a> arguing that there was a direct correlation between the level of intellectual property protection in a country and the foreign direct investment into that country. Further, a study<a href="#fn7" name="fr7">[7]</a> conducted under the aegis of the United Nations has suggested that there was a ‘considerable incentive’ for countries to use the flexibilities provided under TRIPS to maximise net benefits for their development; stating that while in countries with a capacity to innovate stronger IPR protection can reap some benefits in terms of greater innovation at home and a greater diffusion of technology, the same cannot be said about nations without such a capacity, and may in fact impose additional costs.<a href="#fn8" name="fr8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specifically in the area of copyright, it has been observed that increased copyright protection can hamper the growth and development of knowledge based industries. <i>Sanya Smith </i>argues that those who control copyright have a ‘significant advantage’ in the knowledge based economy, and says that in the current scenario where ownership of copyright is largely in the hands of industrialized nations, this places developing nations, and smaller economies at a significant disadvantage.<a href="#fn9" name="fr9">[9]</a> She also goes on to argue that increasing copyright protection alone does not seem to be sufficient to stimulate industries, and there may other factors involved. Additionally, copyright could also significantly increase the cost of creative industries.<a href="#fn10" name="fr10">[10]</a> More fundamentally however, access to information and knowledge are amongst the most affected areas as a result of tightening of copyright laws, leaving students, academicians, researchers, scientists and persons with print disability significantly disadvantaged.</p>
<h2>Implications of the Copyright Provisions in the Proposed Indo- EU FTA</h2>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">Based on the general discussion earlier, this section of the paper seeks to examine the proposed and long debated Indo- EU FTA for the concerns enumerated earlier. As things currently stand, both parties have failed to reach a consensus on various substantial differences, and a ministerial meet originally scheduled for June seems unlikely to take place.<a href="#fn11" name="fr11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It has been observed<a href="#fn12" name="fr12">[12]</a> that the Indo- EU FTA<a href="#fn13" name="fr13">[13]</a> includes various provisions that preserve the flexibilities offered under the TRIPS framework. This is extremely critical from the perspective of developing countries, given that access to knowledge is an extremely important ideal to be preserved. For instance, as noted by Knowledge Ecology International<a href="#fn14" name="fr14">[14]</a>the proposed FTA includes Articles 7 (Objectives) and 8 (Principles) of the TRIPS<a href="#fn15" name="fr15">[15]</a> by reference. Further, the language of Article 13 under the proposed FTA explicitly recognizes the importance of the Doha Declaration, which is a positive step.<a href="#fn16" name="fr16">[16]</a> It has been said however, that stronger language where the parties ‘affirmed’ their obligations under the Declaration could have been used.<a href="#fn17" name="fr17">[17]</a> However, this does not take away from the fact that many of the provisions of the proposed FTA are extremely problematic, as will be discussed in the forthcoming parts of this paper.</p>
<h3>Problematic Provisions</h3>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; ">The main concern that has emerged from this FTA is the fact that some of its provisions dealing with IPR go beyond the mandate as under the TRIPS Agreement. For instance, as pointed out by Shamnaad Basheer to Intellectual Property Watch, various provisions now provide for intermediary liability, which isn’t present in TRIPS. He also adds however, that if the initial stand of the government that India would not go TRIPS plus continues to hold, the government should indeed adopt a strong stance and not cave in to the said provisions.<a href="#fn18" name="fr18">[18]</a> An overview of some of the problematic provisions has been presented hereafter:</p>
<h4>International Obligations</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the proposed treaty, protection granted by the parties should be in accordance with the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention and the WIPO Copyright and Performance and Phonograms Treaties. Snehashish Ghosh in his blog post<a href="#fn19" name="fr19">[19]</a> writes that the EU stipulates compliance with Articles 1 through 22 of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (1961), Articles 1 through 14 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty – WCT (Geneva, 1996), Articles 1 through 23 of the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty – WPPT (Geneva, 1996). It is critical to note that the Rome Convention is not in force in India<a href="#fn20" name="fr20">[20]</a>, and that India is not a party to either the WCT<a href="#fn21" name="fr21">[21]</a> or the WPPT<a href="#fn22" name="fr22">[22]</a>, and therefore, this provision would have the effect of substantially surpassing all obligations that India has at the moment under multilateral international agreements.</p>
<h4>Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) and Digital Rights Management (DRM)</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A TPM, understood simply, is a lock in a digital format, placed on digital material to prevent access to or copying of the material in question. The problem with such measures is that they can prevent even those forms of copying which are legal (for instance, the copying of a movie on which copyright has expired could be prevented), creating a potentially infinite monopoly over the product in question. India, in its negotiations with the EU, has agreed to sweeping language under this provision, where TPMs and DRM measures are broadly defined. The Agreement further provides for limitations on TPM protections only to persons who have “legal access to the protected work or subject matter”.<a href="#fn23" name="fr23">[23]</a></p>
<h4>Copyright Expansion</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are various provisions under the proposed FTA that have the effect of copyright expansion. To begin with, the duration of protection for photographic works is not expressly mentioned in the proposed agreement.<a href="#fn24" name="fr24">[24]</a> Snehashish Ghosh concludes that the term of photographic works is unclear in the proposed FTA. He writes that the proposed FTA makes it mandatory for the parties to comply with the Berne Convention, and all literary and artistic work under the proposed FTA is to be construed as the same as the Berne Convention<a href="#fn25" name="fr25">[25]</a>. Photographic works are included under literary and artistic works under the Berne Convention, and the rights of an author in case of photographic works are protected for a minimum period of 25 years. However, the proposed FTA extends the period of protection to beyond that prescribed by the Berne Convention and states that protection is given to literary and artistic works (as defined in the Berne Convention) for a period of the duration of the life of the author plus fifty years after this death. It further states that works for which the period of protection is not calculated from the death of the author, and which have not been lawfully made available to the public within at least 50 years from their creation, the protection shall terminate.<a href="#fn26" name="fr26">[26]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 7.6 (proposed by the EU), limits the resale rights of a downstream purchaser. It has been noted by Knowledge Ecology International<a href="#fn27" name="fr27">[27]</a> that this seems to give the author of an original work of art a right in perpetuity, to receive a royalty for the resale of the piece of art, where such right cannot be waived or transferred by the author of the work. Therefore, a situation would arise where each time a person who has purchased the work wants to resell the same, he would have to pay royalties to the original author.<a href="#fn28" name="fr28">[28]</a> The observations further go on to note that royalties are not limited, and the amount has to be determined by national legislation. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the provision does not cease to apply after a given number of re-sales, and continues to the death of the author (but might not into the 50 year protection post the death of the author).<a href="#fn29" name="fr29">[29]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Exceptions and limitations for copyright have been covered under Article 7.9(1) of the proposed FTA, and they may be created “only” in accordance with the three step test, which is essentially that (a) the exceptions and limitations must apply in certain special cases; (b) must not be in conflict with the normal course of exploitation of the subject matter in question and (c) must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holders.<a href="#fn30" name="fr30">[30]</a> It has been observed that this test is more restrictive than TRIPS, Berne Convention, Rome Convention or the WCT.<a href="#fn31" name="fr31">[31]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the plus side, temporary copies have been excluded from copyright protection, as per Article 7.9(2) of the proposed FTA, which would ensure the proper functioning of technology.</p>
<h4>Persons with Disabilities</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is nothing that deals with the import/export or cross border exchange of files/documents/books etc. for persons with disabilities.</p>
<h4>Cross Border Measures</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cross Border Measures have been dealt with under Article 30 of the proposed FTA. It is interesting to note that under this Article the EU has proposed the application of border measures to exports as well. This is contrary to the position laid down in the TRIPS Agreement, which has this requirement only for importing infringing goods.<a href="#fn32" name="fr32">[32]</a> Further, the EU also seeks to expand the applicability of such measures to include those goods which also infringe designs or geographical indications. Additionally, Article 30 also leaves out certain TRIPS safeguards, for instance, one that requires the right holder to provide adequate evidence for a prima facie case of infringement.<a href="#fn33" name="fr33">[33]</a></p>
<h4>Intermediary Liability</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It has been suggested that the EU, under the garb of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by users, is purporting to place a greater burden on the providers in question, of policing user activity.<a href="#fn34" name="fr34">[34]</a> For instance under Article 35.1.1 of the proposed FTA, while service providers are not under any general obligation to seek facts or circumstances that could indicate illegal activity, they may be obligated to promptly inform competent authorities of these alleged illegal activities undertaken/information provided by recipients of their service. <a href="#fn35" name="fr35">[35]</a> Otherwise, the providers may also be required to communicate to the authorities, on their request, information that would enable the identification of their service with whom they have storage agreements, as per Article 35.1.2.<a href="#fn36" name="fr36">[36]</a> It has been rightly identified by Glover Wright, that such provisions would only serve to increase tensions between the users and their service providers, with relations dictated by concerns about liability, and barriers in the sending, receiving and storing of information freely. It would be a tricky question for intermediate service providers to check what would constitute ‘knowledge’ and how they were to best safeguard themselves from liability.<a href="#fn37" name="fr37">[37]</a> Therefore, the author is inclined to agree with Wright’s submission that India needs to reject all provisions of liability of intermediate service providers as discussed above.</p>
<h4>IP Enforcement</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There exist, as regards the enforcement of rights, many problematic provisions in the proposed FTA. For starters, the EU has proposed that interlocutory injunctions may also be issued under the same conditions against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe intellectual property rights.<a href="#fn38" name="fr38">[38]</a> This may be found under Article 22.1 of the proposed FTA, and is inherently problematic for being a provision far beyond the mandate as laid down by TRIPS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU is also pushing for the use of very explicit language as regards seizing movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer as a precautionary measure. This also extends to the blocking of the bank accounts and other assets of the said infringer, and to this end, competent authorities may even order the communication of bank, financial or commercial documents, or access to the said information.<a href="#fn39" name="fr39">[39]</a> It is critical to note that such a provision is greatly problematic as being rather vague in its approach, and very readily compromising privacy for ‘alleged’ acts of infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is further critical to note that while Article 20 states that courts should have the power to grant ex parte order to collect evidence that is allegedly infringing, there are no safeguards provided for protection of a bona fide defendant whose premises might have been raided wrongly. It is submitted that provisions that safeguard the interests of defendants are of prime importance, especially in the Indian set up, where courts are as it is rather generous in their granting of ex parte orders.</p>
<h2>Concluding Observations</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While India may stand to benefit from the proposed FTA with the EU, there remain significant IP related issues that need to be ironed out before India comes to any consensus about the agreement and ratifies the same. On the basis of the discussion over the course of this paper, it may be seen that the provisions on intellectual property rights are problematic on various levels, particularly in the areas of expansion of copyright, the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions, cross border measures, TPMs, liability of service providers and enforcement mechanisms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions in the first half of this paper have demonstrated that increased IP protections do not necessarily translate into increased FDI and may in fact stifle innovation. Further, the warning to developing countries against adopting IPR standards fixed by developed nations has been sounded many times over, and is one that needs to be heeded to very closely for developing nations to achieve their developmental objectives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has over a period of time established an IP regime that is consumer friendly. In adopting the proposed FTA in its current form, she risks endangering this regime that has thus far been instrumental in proliferating emerging technologies in the county.<a href="#fn40" name="fr40">[40]</a> Given that India has already acceded to international standards for IPRs as a result of being a member of the WTO and being TRIPS compliant, there is no cogent reason to be made out that warrants the accession to an FTA with TRIPS plus provisions. India ought to continue to push back strongly on these fronts, bearing in mind that its stance could very well set the tone for other such agreements in South Asia. From the way things stand at the moment, it is indeed a matter of some relief that the ratification of this proposed FTA still appears to be at a considerable distance.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].Hereafter referred to as the FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <span>Sanya Reid Smith, Intellectual Property in Free Trade Agreements, for the UNDP Regional Trade Workshop (17-18 December, Penang, Malaysia), available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/11W8dqy">http://bit.ly/11W8dqy</a> <span>(last accessed 04 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. Id at 5.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. Supra note 2, citing PJ Heald, Information Economics and Policy 16 (2004) 57-65</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. <span>Edwin Mansfield, Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, International Finance Corporation: Discussion Paper No. 19, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/18V4D5v">http://bit.ly/18V4D5v</a><span><a href="http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1994/02/01/000009265_3970311123634/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf"></a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr7" name="fn7">7</a>]. See generally- Rod Falvey et. al., The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence, United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Discussion Paper (2006), available at <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/11JBR4o">http://bit.ly/11JBR4o</a> <span>(last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr9" name="fn9">9</a>]. Supra note 2 at 23.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr10" name="fn10">10</a>]. Supra note 2 at 23.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr11" name="fn11">11</a>]. <span>PTI, India – EU FTA Talks Fail to Bridge Gaps, available at </span>http://bit.ly/19LJaeP <span>(last accessed 05 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr12" name="fn12">12</a>]. <span>Krista Cox, Quick Reaction to the EU/India (BTIA) Negotiating Text, available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1693">http://keionline.org/node/1693</a> (last accessed 04 June, 2013). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr13" name="fn13">13</a>]. Hereafter referred to as the FTA</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr14" name="fn14">14</a>]. <span>KEI Staff, More Notes on the India EU FTA (BTIA), available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1692">http://keionline.org/node/1692</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr15" name="fn15">15</a>]. <span>See </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ">http://bit.ly/13XhCfZ</a> <span> for more details, and for the bare text of the Articles. (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr16" name="fn16">16</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr17" name="fn17">17</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr18" name="fn18">18</a>]. <span>Patralekha Chatterjee, Leaked IP Chapter of India- EU FTA Shows TRIPS-PLUS Pitfalls for India, Expert Says, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/Y7w70e">http://bit.ly/Y7w70e</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr19" name="fn19">19</a>]. <span>Snehashish Ghosh, Analysis of Copyright Expansion in the India-EU FTA (July 2010), available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/ysitEC">http://bit.ly/ysitEC</a><span><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/blog/analysis-copyright-expansion-india-eu-fta"></a> (last accessed 03 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr20" name="fn20">20</a>]. <span>For the status of Contracting Parties, see </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/UITpsX">http://bit.ly/UITpsX</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr21" name="fn21">21</a>]. <span>For the status of Contracting Parties, see </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/f92xL2">http://bit.ly/f92xL2</a><span> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr22" name="fn22">22</a>]. For the status of Contracting Parties, see <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/fEsUAF">http://bit.ly/fEsUAF</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr23" name="fn23">23</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr24" name="fn24">24</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr25" name="fn25">25</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr26" name="fn26">26</a>]. Supra note 19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr27" name="fn27">27</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr28" name="fn28">28</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr29" name="fn29">29</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr30" name="fn30">30</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr31" name="fn31">31</a>]. Supra note 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr32" name="fn32">32</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr33" name="fn33">33</a>]. Supra note 12.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr34" name="fn34">34</a>]. See Article 35 of the Proposed FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr35" name="fn35">35</a>]. <span>Glover Wright, A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, available at </span><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/16Dfuga">http://bit.ly/16Dfuga</a><span><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf/view"></a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013) at 12- 14.</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr36" name="fn36">36</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr37" name="fn37">37</a>]. Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr38" name="fn38">38</a>]. <span>Thiru, EU-India FTA: EU Pushes for IP Enforcement- IP Chapter Draft Text Under Negotiation (2013), available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1681">http://keionline.org/node/1681</a> (last accessed 05 June, 2013).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr39" name="fn39">39</a>]. See Article 22.3 of the proposed FTA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr40" name="fn40">40</a>]. Supra note 35.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightAccessibilityIntermediary LiabilityTechnological Protection Measures2013-07-03T06:47:08ZBlog EntryIT (Amendment) Act, 2008, 69 Rules: Draft and Final Version Comparison
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison
<b>Jadine Lannon has performed a clause-by-clause comparison of the Draft 69 Rules and official 69 Rules under Section 69B in order to better understand how the two are similar and how they differ. Very brief notes have been included on some changes we deemed to be important.
</b>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc1.png" alt="c1" class="image-inline" title="c1" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc2.png" alt="c2" class="image-inline" title="c2" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc3.png" alt="c3" class="image-inline" title="c3" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc4.png" alt="c4" class="image-inline" title="c4" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc5.png" alt="c5" class="image-inline" title="c5" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_pc6.png" alt="c6" class="image-inline" title="c6" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc7.png" alt="c7" class="image-inline" title="c7" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc8.png" alt="c8" class="image-inline" title="c8" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pc9.png" alt="c9" class="image-inline" title="c9" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similar to the other comparisons that I have done on the 69A and 69B Draft and official Rules, the majority of the changes between these two sets of rules serves to restructure and clarify various clauses in the Draft 69 Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Three new definitions appear in the Clause (2) of the 69 Rules, including a definition for “communication”, which appears in the Draft Rules but has no associated definition under Clause (2) of the Draft Rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clause (31) of the Draft Rules, which deals with the requirement of security agencies of the State and Union territories to share any information gathered through interception, monitoring and/or decryption with federal agencies, does not make an appearance in the official rules. Further, this necessity does not seem to be implied anywhere in the official 69 Rules.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-amendment-act-69-rules-draft-and-final-version-comparison</a>
</p>
No publisherjdineInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityInformation Technology2013-04-30T09:56:07ZBlog EntryIndian 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 ItemGoogle'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 ItemIndia 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 ItemSuper 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 EntryAnalyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii
<b>Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Unnecessary Blocks and Mistakes:</b></p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">http://hinduexistance.files.wordpress.com/..., which appears on the leaked list, does not exist because the URL is incorrect. However, the correct URL does contain an image which, in my opinion, can be considered to be capable of inciting violence. It has not been blocked due to a spelling error in the order. Instead of blocking hinduexist<b><i>e</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/... the DoT has ordered the blocking of hinduexist<b><i>a</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/..., which does not exist.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Two URLs in the block order are from the website of the High Council for Human Rights, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason for blocking these two links from this particular website is unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The website of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World was blocked. Again, the reason for blocking this website remains unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">URLs such as, http://farazahmed.com/..., mumblingminion.blogspot.com, were blocked. The content on these URLs was in fact debunking the fake photographs.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Certain blocked Facebook pages did not have any bearing on the North East exodus which was the main reason behind the blocks. For example, Facebook link leading to United States Institute for Peace page was blocked.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Duration of the Block</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) did not specify the period for which the block has been implemented in its orders. As a result of which certain URLs still remain blocked while a majority of the links in the leaked list can be accessed. Lack of clear directions from the DoT has resulted in haphazard blocking and certain internet service providers (ISPs) have lifted the block on certain links whereas some other ISPs have continued with a complete block.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>How have the intermediaries reacted to the block orders?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Going by the leaked list of websites blocked by DoT, it issued the block orders to ‘all internet service licensees’. Intermediaries that do not fall in the category of 'internet service licensees’ were also sent a separate set of requests for taking down third party content. However, it is unclear under which provision of the law such request was made by the Government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Service Licensees</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/chart_1.png" alt="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" class="image-inline" title="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" /><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The internet service licensee or the ISPs have not followed any uniform system to notify that a particular URL or website in the leaked list is blocked according to DoT’s orders. The lack of transparency in the implementation of the block orders, have a chilling effect on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For instance, BSNL returns the following messages:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications" or “This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom (DOT).”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, these messages are not uniform across all the URLs/websites in the leaked list. BSNL does not generate any response for the majority of the URLs in the leaked list. This results in ‘invisible censorship’ as the person who is trying to access the blocked URL does not have any means to know whether a particular URL is unavailable or certain sites are blocked by government orders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lack of notification does not only infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but also violates the fundamental right to a constitutional remedy guaranteed under Article 32 of our Constitution. The person aggrieved by such block orders cannot approach the Court for a remedy because there is no means to figure out:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) Description of the content blocked?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(b) Who has issued the block order/request?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(c) Under which provision of the law such block order/request has been issued?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(d) Who has implemented the block order/request? and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(e) What was the reason for the block?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The intermediaries should provide with the above notification details while implementing a block order issued by the Government. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediaries hosting third party content: </b></p>
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">More than 100 out of the 309 blocks are Facebook (http and https) URLs. Facebook has not informed its users about the reasons behind unavailability of certain pages or content. This is another instance of invisible censorship. However, YouTube, a Google service, has maintained certain level of transparency, and informs the user that the content has been blocked as per ‘government removal request’. It is interesting to note that certain YouTube user accounts were terminated as well. It is unclear whether this was as a result of the block order. Furthermore, links associated with blogger.com, which is another service provided by Google, have been removed.</p>
<hr />
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">This was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2012/09/223-analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-rioting-edition-part-ii/">re-posted</a> by Medianama on September 26, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii</a>
</p>
No publishersnehashishIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilitySocial Networking2012-09-27T10:42:30ZBlog Entry