Centre for Internet and Society

Read Our Annual Reports and Audit Reports

Admin — 2025-12-29T14:02:33Z

Click on the links below to access our annual and audit reports.

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2024-2025 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2024) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2024) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2024) Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2024 - 2025) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2023-2024 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2024) Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2023 - 2024) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2022-2023 Consolidated Financials (FY 2022 - 2023 + Audit Report) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2023) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2021-2022 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2022) CIS Signed Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2021-22 + Audit Report) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2020-2021 Download Audit Report (2020-21), (PDF, 926 KB) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2021) Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2020-21 Download Programmatic Annual Report (April 2020 - March 2021) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2019-2020 Download Audit Report (2019-20), (PDF, 1060 KB) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2019) Quarterly receipt of Foreign Contributions - Q3 (October - December 2019) Quarterly receipt of Foreign Contributions - Q4 (January - March 2020)
Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2018-19 Download Annual Report Download Audit Report Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3(Oct - Dec) 2018
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2019-20 Download Annual Report (2019-20)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2017-18 Download Annual Report (2017-18), (PDF, 4809 Kb) Download Consolidated Financial Statements (2017-18)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2016-17 Download Annual Report (2016-17), (PDF, 1327 Kb) Download Consolidated Financial Statements (2016-17)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2015-16 Download Annual Report (2015-16) (PDF, 3559 Kb) Download Audit Report (2015-16), (PDF, 1907 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2014-15 CIS in partnership with the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the Centre for Law and Policy Research compiled the National Compendium of Laws, Policies, Programmes for Persons with Disabilities. During the year CIS signed memorandum of understandings with Mysore University (for converting to Unicode and re-releasing their encyclopaedia under Creative Commons License); Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College (to introduce Indian Language Wikipedias in the Indian Under-Graduate and Post Graduate Classroom); Andhra Loyola College (for 5 years to enhance Telugu Wikipedia through increased contributions to Wikipedia and make it available under free license); and Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa (to enhance digital literacy in Konkani in the education sector across Goa). CIS also conducted an empirical study of five separate and diverse banks (State Bank of India, Central Bank of India, ICICI Bank, IndusInd Bank, and Standard Chartered Bank) to gain a practical perspective on the existing banking practices and policies in India, and published a Banking Policy Guide. Further CIS took part in the WIPO-SCCR meetings. India became the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and the Accessible Books Consortium was launched. Download Annual Report (2014-15) (PDF, 1 Mb) Download Audit Report (2014-15) (PDF, 527 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2013-14 CIS celebrated five years of existence with an exhibition showcasing its works and accomplishments since it was founded in 2008. Along with CLPR, CIS published a report on making the General Elections of 2014 participatory and accessible for voters with disablities. CIS signed a memorandum of understanding with Christ University, Bangalore, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, KIIT University and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences for furthering the growth of Indian languages on Wikipedia. CIS is working with Privacy International on the Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project and as part of the work drafted the Privacy Protection Bill. CIS hosted the second Institute on Internet and Society at Pune from February 11 to 17, 2014. The Knowledge Repository was compiled and presented to the participants. Download Annual Report (2013-14) (PDF, 1.3 Mb) Download Audit Report (2013-14) (PDF, 7174 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2012-13 CIS is working on two projects: Creating a National Kit of Laws, Policies and Programmes for Persons with Disabilities and Developing an open source screen reading software solution “NVDA” to handle Indian languages and text-to-speech software in 15 Indian languages with the Hans Foundation. CIS published a report on Accessibility of Government Websites in India with the Hans Foundation and the Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report with Consumers International. Wikimedia Foundation awarded a two-year grant to support and develop free knowledge in India and consequently, CIS got a new office in Delhi. Pranesh Prakash's preliminary analysis on blocked websites was featured in leading publications like Wall Street Journal, Hindu, Outlook, etc., and as part of the Google Policy Fellowship, brought out a report on Intermediary Liability in India, and initiated a project on The Internet Institute with the Ford Foundation. Download Annual Report (2012-13) (PDF, 2211 Kb) Download Audit Report (2012-13) (PDF, 2813 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2011-12 CIS published a new improved edition of the Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective with G3ict and Hans Foundation, prepared a report on Making Mobile Phones and Services Accessible for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, negotiated meetings at WIPO and with the Third World Network conducted an Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled, published a report on the state of Open Government Data in India with the Transparency & Accountability Initiative, published outputs on IT Act, Limitations, Copyright, Internet Protocol, Media, Sexual Minorities, and UID with Privacy International, UK and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, produced a report titled Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 with Google and released five monographs: Archives and Access, Porn: Law, Video & Technology, The Last Cultural Mile, Re:Wiring Bodies and Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities. Download Annual Report (2011-12) (PDF, 1956 Kb) Download Audit Report (2011-12) (PDF, 21,313 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2010-11 CIS distributed for peer five monographs titled Re: Wiring Bodies, Pornography and the Law, Archive and Access, The Last Cultural Mile and Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities for peer review, published a Position Paper in collaboration with Hivos and organised workshops on Digital Natives with a Cause in Taipei, Johannesburg, and Santiago, the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with G3ict and ITU, a report on Open Government Data with Transparency & Accountability Initiative, a report on Online Video Environment in India with iCommons and Open Video Alliance and two workshops on Privacy Matters in Kolkata and Bangalore in partnership with Privacy India and Society in Action Group. Download Annual Report (2010-11) (PDF, 1872 Kb) Download Audit Report (2010-11) (PDF, 14823 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2009-10 CIS and the Institute of Network Cultures entered into a collaboration to produce a Reader on the Wikipedia, in partnership with Hivos published a report, Digital Natives with a Cause?, entered into research collaborations with the Centre for Study of Culture and Society for the Networked Higher Education Initiative, taught courses at Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Women’s Studies Centre, Pune University, Christ University, Bangalore, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, Shanghai University and the New Media Lab, Jadavpur University, co-organised a nationwide Right to Read Campaign in Chennai, Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai, prepared the India Country Report for Consumers International and organised the Maps for Making Change workshops in Delhi and Ahmedabad. Download Annual Report for 2009-10 (PDF, 1952 Kb) Download Audit Report for 2009-10 (PDF, 9.5 Mb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2008-09 CIS drafted a policy on web accessibility for the National Informatics Centre, worked on a comparative study of major international web and ATM accessibility policies for the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, worked with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to formulate recommendations to make research publications open access.entered into partnership with LexUM for the Free Access to Law project and signed contracts with researchers for producing monographs on Re: Wiring Bodies, Archive and Access, Pornography and the Law, and The Last Cultural Mile. Download Annual Report (2008-09) (PDF, 561 Kb) Download Audit Report (2008-09) (PDF, 7.05 Mb)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-reports

Annual Report (2008-09)

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T12:23:29Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2008.pdf

Annual Report (2009-10)

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T11:54:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2009.pdf

Global Networks, Individual Freedoms: A Peer Forum on Internet Freedom and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T09:12:28Z

In Connection with the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows Program, the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva is pleased to invite Pranesh Prakash to a peer forum at the United States Mission to the United Nations on Thursday, June 21, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Join the Internet Freedom Fellows, diplomats, UN representatives, civil society, technologists and social media experts, Geneva media and other professionals engaged in the intersection of human rights, internet freedom and technology.

This peer forum is part of the Internet Freedom Fellows program, which brings human rights activists from across the globe to Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to meet with fellow activists, U.S. and international government leaders, and members of civil society and the private sector engaged in technology and human rights.

This year’s Internet Freedom Fellows, all human rights activists and active practitioners of digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan.

For additional information on the program, please visit Internet Freedom Fellows.

Program

9:00 a.m.	Welcome and introduction David Kennedy / John Horniblow
9:15 - 10:15	Freedom to Connect and Freedom from Fear: The problem of surveillance in a networked world. Rebecca MacKinnon – Co Founder Global Voices Online, Author “Consent of the Networked”, Boards of Directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Global Network Initiative
10:15 - 10:45	Developing Networked Voices and Promoting the protection of Human Rights Andreas Harsono, blogger and human rights activist (Indonesia), and Rosebell Kagumire, multimedia journalist working on peace and conflict issues in the Eastern Africa region (Uganda) 2011 Internet Freedom Fellows and journalists (via Skype)
10:45 - 11:00	Coffee break
11:00 - 12:00	Moderated Panel Discussion – How Do we Protect Human Rights in a world of global networks? How do the needs of the grassroots, civil society and business inform the process of upholding the UDHR and IHL in networks and technologies? Dr. Robert Whelan (ICRC), Pranesh Prakash, Salil Trepathi (IHRB), Nicolas Seidler (ISOC), Emin Milli Moderated Panel Discussion followed by Q &A
12:00 - 13:00	Buffet Luncheon
13:00 - 13:30	The Open Internet - Empowering Digital Humanitarianism Paul Conneally - Head of Communications for ITU and a former Red Cross delegate (in various positions, locations and with IFRC plus ICRC and the Irish Red Cross).
13:40 - 14:10	Global Network Initiative and the multistakeholder approach ensuring an Open Internet David Sullivan -Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative
14.15 - 14.40	The Silicon Valley Standard and implications for technology companies in the protection of Human Rights and other freedoms Brett Solomon -Exec Director Access Now (via Skype)
15:00	Twiplomacy Matthias Luefkins Managing Director, Digital, EMEA– Burson Marstellar

Participation is limited. Please RSVP by noon on Friday, June 15 to iff@usmission.ch. When responding, please indicate whether you will also join us for the luncheon buffet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights

'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T04:55:51Z

Global hacking movement Anonymous has called for protesters to take to the streets in 16 cities around India on Saturday over what it considers growing government censorship of the Internet, writes Pratap Chakravarty.

This was published in AFP on June 8, 2012

The call for demonstrations by the Indian arm of the group follows a March 29 court order issued in the southern city of Chennai demanding 15 Indian Internet providers block access to file-sharing websites such as Pirate Bay.

The order has resulted in access being denied to a host of websites that carry pirated films and music among other legal content, including www.isohunt.com and www.pastebin.com.

On Wednesday, the Anonymous forum fired an opening shot by attacking the website of state-run telecom provider MTNL, pasting the logo of the group -- the mask of 17th century revolutionary Guy Fawkes -- on www.mtnl.net.in.

In an open letter the same day, the group accused the government of trying to create a "Great Indian Firewall" to establish control on the web and issuing a "declaration of war from yourself... to us."

Internet users and supporters have been asked to join peaceful rallies in cities including the capital New Delhi and the tech hub of Bangalore, with detailed instructions issued online to participants.

Tech website www.pluggd.in reported the demonstrators have been asked to wear Guy Fawkes' masks, download a recorded message to play to police, and are to chant "United as one! Divided as zero! We are Anonymous! We are legion!"

Concerns about Internet freedom in India go beyond the court order in Chennai, however, and stem from an update to India's Information Technology Act that was given by the IT and communications ministry in April last year.

The new rules regulating Internet companies -- providers, websites and search engines -- instruct them that they must remove "disparaging" or "blasphemous" content within 36 hours if they receive a complaint by an "affected person".

Groups such as the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, have waged a year-long campaign for amendments to the rules, which were quietly released in April.

Industry groups have also objected, saying they are unclear on the changes which are in any case impossible to implement when it comes to acting on individual complaints about specific content.

"A lot of education is required in this field," secretary of the Internet Service Providers Association of India S.P. Jairath told AFP.

The government has also become embroiled in a row with social networks after Telecoms Minister Kapil Sibal held a series of meetings with IT giants Google, Yahoo! and Facebook last year to discuss the pre-screening of content.

The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of obscene images found online that risked offending Muslims or defamed politicians, including his boss, the head of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi.

Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their platforms.

Anonymous is a secretive "hacker-activist" network and is thought to be a loosely knit collective with no clearly defined leadership structure.

It has claimed dozens of online attacks on sites ranging from the Vatican to Los Angeles Police Canine Association, but is increasingly the target of law enforcement agencies who have arrested dozens of members.

The above was published in the following places as well:

NDTV, June 9, 2012
Jagran Post, June 9, 2012
The Times of India, June 9, 2012
LiveMint, June 9, 2012
Economic Times, June 9, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws

Hackers Take Protest to Indian Streets and Cyberspace

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T04:02:21Z

First there was self-styled Gandhian activist Anna Hazare who took to the streets to protest corruption. Now a group agitating against censorship on the Internet has arrived in India.

This article by Shreya Shah was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 8, 2012 Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

Only this time, the location is cyberspace and their modus operandi hacking.

In the last few months, Anonymous –a group of hackers, or hacktivists as they like to call themselves –has gone after Web sites of political parties, government sites and Internet service providers, the latest being MTNL, to protest censorship on the Internet.

The group says they are opposing laws including the 2008 Information Technology (Amendment) Act and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules of 2011, which they say unfairly restrict Internet freedom.

On Saturday, the hackers will take their protest to the streets, with an Occupy Wall Street-style march called ”Operation Occupy India” planned in 17 cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur in Maharashtra and Kundapur in Karnataka. The group has requested all protestors to wear Guy Fawkes masks, the symbol of Anonymous.

“This time the common man wants to help us,” an “anon,” which is what members of the group call themselves, told India Real Time.

Anonymous, which has a global presence, catapulted to fame with its attacks on Visa, Mastercard and Paypal.

This is how the group attacks Web sites: It overwhelms them with thousands of requests from different computer systems simultaneously. The Web site is unable to handle the load and crashes.

The group intensified its attacks after Internet Service Providers like Reliance, MTNL and Airtel temporarily blocked file sharing sites like Vimeo, Dailymotion, Patebin and Pirate bay, citing a Court order.

But many question the method used by Anonymous.

“I don’t believe in defacing or hacking government Web sites to prove a point,” says Ankit Fadia, a cyber security expert. “You can’t hold the government ransom,” he adds.

In an open letter to the government, Anonymous India defended its actions. It wrote that traditional ways of protesting are losing meaning and this is a new method to pressure the politicians.

Members of the group say that like a regular protest on the street, they too block the infrastructure of their opponents. Except in this case, the infrastructure is located in cyberspace.

This is a “geek method of attacking,” said the anon who spoke to India Real Time. The group does not plan to attacks sites like that of the Indian railways, for instance, which is used by the masses, he explained.

But not everyone is convinced.

The group attacked the Web site of India’s Supreme Court even when it says it does not attack Web sites used by the common man, says Pranesh Prakash, Program Director of the Center for Internet and Society.

The IT Act is another reason Anonymous is protesting. The Act gives the government the power to remove content it finds offensive. The government can also restrict public access to a Web site.

Anonymous is also protesting the Intermediary Guidelines of 2011. According to this Act, a site that hosts offensive content will have to remove it within 36 hours of a complaint against it.

As a result, Web sites like Google and Facebook are facing criminal cases for hosting objectionable content on their site.

“This government does not stand for censorship; this government does not stand for infringement of free speech. Indeed, this government does not stand for regulation of free speech,” Kapil Sibal, the Communications and Information Technology Minister told the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of the Indian Parliament, last month.

Pranesh Prakash, of the Center for Internet and Society told India Real Time that he does not believe that Anonymous will influence policy makers. He says that the main aim of a protest is to get media attention, and in turn get the attention of the people.

But he agrees that India’s cyber laws are “hopelessly flawed” and create a framework by which not only the government but everyone can censor.

He adds, “The laws are a greater threat than Anonymous.”

Photo Source: Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace

Poor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India

praskrishna — 2012-06-17T04:18:26Z

The debate over the "Intermediaries Guidelines" as part of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Parliament brought focus to the issue of censorship and lack of accountability of governing bodies vis-à-vis the internet in the country. This cannot be divorced from the larger questions related to the threats to freedom of expression from both the state and various societal actors today.

This article by Geeta Seshu was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVII No. 24, June 2012.

An annulment motion against the Information Technology (Inter-mediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 moved by Member of Parliament (MP) P Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the Rajya Sabha, was the first serious attempt by internet freedom activists to get the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 discussed and reviewed by the country’s lawmakers.

Not unexpectedly, the motion, specifically against the rules governing intermediaries – clause (zg) of subsection (2) of Section 87 read with subsection (2) of Section 79 of the >IT Act, 2000 – was not carried. However, the discussion that preceded it at least demonstrated the concerns of parliamentarians about what internet freedom activists have termed the “draconian” provisions of the IT Act.

It is about time, really, that parliamentarians sit down to review what they very quickly acquiesced to in December 2009. It is also about time that the debate over the provisions of the IT Act be conducted in the public domain, instead of in closed-door meetings with expert groups and committees comprising a narrow set of stakeholders favoured by the government or its various wings.

The discussion in the Rajya Sabha largely centred around the vague and sweeping terminology of the range of content that anyone could take objection to. P Rajeev said that while he supported the regulation of the internet, he was not in favour of its control. The rules were ultra vires the IT Act, he said. Echoing his concern, leader of the opposition Arun Jaitley of the Bharatiya Janata Party, D Raja of the Communist Party of India and N K Singh of the Janata Dal (United) – to name just a few – also said that the internet was different from other media and censoring it was untenable.

Finally, union minister for information technology, Kapil Sibal, was forced to give an assurance to the house that he would call a meeting of MPs, industry and all stakeholders and implement whatever consensus emerges after a discussion on the specific words members had objections to.

There was no mention from the minister on a host of other problem areas in the rules as they are currently framed, including the very sweeping definition of an “intermediary” itself (any entity which on behalf of another receives, stores or transmits any electronic record – which means internet service providers, web hosting providers, search engines, online payment sites, cybercafes and bloggers too). No mention either of the rules for intermediaries to takedown notices within 36 hours of receiving a complaint, irrespective of whether these are fair and reasonable. No mention of whether the rules need to provide procedures for hearing and adjudicating complaints before any content is taken down.

The IT Guidelines

In several ways, the rules have gone way beyond what was laid down in the IT Act, but they also add considerably to the original reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the terms that can invite objections under the guidelines are:

(a) Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to; (b) grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophiliac, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever; (c) harm minors in any way; (d) infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights; (e) violates any law for the time being in force; (f) deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature; (g) impersonate another person; (h) contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programmes designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource; (i) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

With this wide-ranging and entirely arbitrary set of potential violations, the possibility of misuse is also immense. In its comments submitted in response to the draft rules, Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) pointed out that Sections 79(1) and (2) of the amended IT Act itself did provide for exemptions for third party liabilities of intermediaries, something that the rules have now virtually set aside.[1]

Other comments submitted by these organisations about security and privacy of cybercafe users deal with minors and with the general architecture of cybercafes. In the first instance, the organisations expressed concern that undue restrictions on the use of the internet by minors (photo identity cards, accompanied by adults, etc) would hamper their access to the internet and would actually discourage poorer children from using the internet.

In the second instance, the detailed restrictions on the layout of the cybercafés – the height of cabins and the directions of the screens, etc, would, they felt, be intrusive and violate the privacy of internet users in cybercafes. Besides, vulnerable sections like sexual minorities or HIV positive patients may even be open to identity theft, they feared.

The discussion on the rules unfortunately did not come close to addressing these fears. While the lawmakers generally accepted the importance of regulation of the internet and electronic communication, there is still very little clarity on exactly how this must be done, the extent to which regulation must take place and the agency that will be entrusted with this task.

The IT Act, 2000 was first passed in an era when the country was transitioning to an electronic age. E-commerce was uppermost in the minds of policymakers, their eyes firmly fixed on the new economy. But soon enough, it was clear that technology was developing rapidly and an expert committee was constituted to revise the act and suggest amendments that would incorporate technological changes.

Lack of Accountability

In the wake of the 26 November 2008 attack in Mumbai, national security and intelligence were powerful emotional catchwords and few questioned some of the sweeping provisions laid down by the rules under the IT Act. While the annulment motion focuses on the pernicious nature of the guidelines for intermediaries, this is only one amongst a series of rules that seek to change the very manner in which Indians can access and use the internet. Other rules relate to decrypting, monitoring and blocking of communication, data security and privacy (Section 69: interception, monitoring and decryption of information, Section 69 A: blocking, Section 69 B: monitoring of traffic data or information) and of course, the complete absence of checks and balances for the powers given to authorities like Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In).

In fact, there has been little or no review of the responsibility vested in an agency like CERT-In, which describes itself as the nodal agency to oversee the security of the nation. Conflating security concerns with content that may be objectionable to some is one thing but also providing this agency with the powers to block sites without even the creators of these sites getting to know about it is another.

Most of our attention today is on the censorship rampant on the internet in India. Most recently, there have been several instances of internet sites being blocked and takedown notices sent to bloggers. In the last few months, we have had the arbitrary blocking of the website cartoonsagainstcorruption.com which was run by Kanpur-based cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mohapatra and the controversial move last year by the Indian government to get internet service providers to remove so-called objectionable content on Facebook, Orkut and Youtube, apart from other sites. A complaint against these sites by journalist Vinay Rai followed soon after, though it strangely did not invoke provisions of the IT Act, preferring to cite alleged violations under the Indian Penal Code.

Trivedi did not even know that his site was blocked till some friends called him to tell him that they could not access his site. After an exchange of emails with his webhost, the portal “Big Rock”, he was informed that the site was suspended because it contained cartoons that showed disrespect to national emblems. A complaint had been received by Mumbai’s cybercrime cell by a Mumbai-based advocate, R P Pandey. The Kanpur resident also learnt later from newspaper reports that another case, this time under charges of sedition, were lodged against him in Beed district of Maharashtra.

While this method of embroiling someone in cases in far-flung geographical areas is not new (the complaint by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management against New Delhi-based Caravan magazine in Silchar, Assam is a good case in point), Trivedi quickly moved the content on his site onto another blogging platform, also got together friends and supporters to launch “Saveyourvoice”, an online and offline campaign, with a cheeky celebration of All Fool’s Day on 1 April 2012 with a greeting to the minister Kapil Sibal “for his foolish attempts to try censoring internet” and another campaign – “Freedom in a cage” – at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, in April 2012.

Other internet freedom activists have got together to secure information on censorship. Last year, a right-to-information (RTI) application by the CIS revealed that 11 websites were blocked on orders from the department of information technology. A writ petition against the IT Act has been filed in the Kerala High Court and the Software Freedom Law Centre, which was instrumental in campaigning for the annulment motion in the Rajya Sabha, has launched an online petition against the IT Act rules that refers to government authority to censor facebook posts, monitor emails and skype conversations, access private information and mine sensitive personal data.[2]

Governments the world over are exercised about the need to impose restrictions on online freedom and a good indication is the bi-annual Google Transparency Report that monitors the number and categories of requests sent by different governments to take down content. In the last report for the period January to June 2011, the report recorded requests to remove 358 items and 68 content removal requests, 58% of which were fully or partially complied with. In addition, there were government requests to remove Youtube videos that were protests against local leaders or used offensive language against religious leaders, besides 236 communities and profiles from Orkut which were critical of a local politician.

Interestingly, while content removal requests for the Orkut profiles remained as Google maintained it did not fit its own community standards or local law, Google chose to “locally” restrict the videos that may incite enmity between communities. With minor variations, this is a stance adopted by other online companies, like Facebook and Twitter, with the latter coming out with a policy earlier this year that it would remove content that appeared to violate local laws.

In the struggle to keep the internet free and protect communication from surveillance and blocking by governments, it would be naive to expect commercially-driven internet companies to put up much of a stand. Most of these stakeholders have agreed with lawmakers that the internet does need regulation. On their part, the Indian government, which has flexed its desire to regulate the internet, has also been sensitive to criticism of its role in censoring online freedom. Other stakeholders – the vast community of users of the internet, bloggers, website hosts, creators and producers of online videos, file-sharers, software developers, etc, are only engaged in a race to protect their content and shift it to more amenable sites every time they run into trouble.

Threats to Freedom of Expression

However, it must be noted that the censorship of online media is but a reflection of the curbs on freedom of expression in general. The attacks on freedom of expression in “offline” media, the attacks on journalists and the deaths of eight journalists since 2010,[3] the alarming regularity with which we are witnessing a ban on books and cinema, art or theatre, the increasing intolerance of dissenting or differing opinions in society, the abject fear of free and independent debate and discussion and the role of the government in actively furthering this intolerance are suggestive of a dangerous trend.

Almost all these instances are marked by the clear absence of any due procedure in addressing the content that becomes objectionable to someone or some sections of society, instead arbitrarily and speedily removing this content from the public domain. Whether it is the withdrawal of Rohinton Mistry’s book Such a Long Journey, a prescribed textbook by Bombay University, midway through the academic year, or that of recent issue of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook on the Constitution of India, institutional redressal mechanisms were simply not given a chance.

The woeful absence of similar redressal mechanisms for so-called objectionable content under the rules of the amended IT Act only exacerbates this situation further.

Notes

[1].http://privacyindia.org/2011/03/10/comments-on-the-information-technology-guidelines-for-cyber-cafe-rules-2011/
[2].www.softwarefreedom.org
[3].The Free Speech Hub, which has been tracking violations of freedom of expression as part of a project from the media-watch site, The Hoot (www.thehoot.org), has this list: Hemchandra Pandey (July 2010), Bimala Prasad Talukdar (September 2010), Sushil Pathak (December 2010), Umesh Rajput (January 2011), J Dey (June 2011), Ramesh Singhla (October 2011), Chandrioka (February 2012) and Rajesh Mishra (March 2012).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india

Copyright Amendment: Bad, but Could Have Been Much Worse

sunil — 2012-06-15T12:29:39Z

The changes to the Copyright Act protect the disabled - but are restrictive about cover versions and web freedom, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in the Business Standard on June 10, 2012.

When the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, was passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha on May 22, it meant that there was little reason for celebration, some not-so-great news, and a lot of pretty bad news.

The only real reason for unqualified celebration is the amendment’s introduction of a robust exception for the disabled. It is bleeding-edge policy formulation, as it is right up there alongside the Treaty for the Visually Impaired currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The Indian exception is more robust: first, it is disability-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses the needs of the print-impaired; and second, it is works-neutral, unlike the treaty which only addresses books and printed works. In brief, given the very limited circulation of copyrighted works amongst the disabled, they now can convert inaccessible works to accessible formats and share them with each other on a non-profit basis. No royalty needs to be paid to the rights-holders for this conversion and the resultant access. Other reasons to celebrate include the newly introduced exception for non-commercial lending and the extension of fair dealing (or fair use) to all works.

Now for some middling news. The Digital Rights Management provision makes it an offence punishable with a fine and a two-year jail term to circumvent “effective technological measures” (also called Technological Protection Measures) and remove “rights management information” (RMI). The provision protects public interest since it does not allow rights-holders to claim rights unavailable under copyright law, and does not prevent consumers and citizens from benefiting from the various fair dealing (or fair use) exceptions and limitations.

Unfortunately, the provision mandates onerous record-keeping for those providing circumvention technologies, and also does not insist that the rights-holder provide the means for circumvent when the consumer or citizen legitimately needs to do so.

The first piece of bad news is that an inadequate “safe harbour” provision has been introduced for Internet intermediaries. Like the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act has also gotten the configuration of the intermediary liability regime wrong. This was the opportunity to finally protect common carriers, platforms for social media and commons-based peer-production (such as free software and open content). In short, search engines are finally legal in India, and so are ISPs, virtual private network providers and content delivery networks.

But unfortunately, social media platforms such as Facebook and peer-production platforms like Wikipedia are not afforded sufficient immunity to thrive as real-time participatory platforms. The take-down procedure is designed to provide instant relief to rights-holders, as intermediaries are supposed to remove content immediately. They have the option of reinstating content if the take-down notice is not followed within three weeks by a court order. This mechanism will have a chilling effect on free speech — given that Indian internet service providers very obviously privilege the interests of intellectual property rights-holders over those of the ISPs’ customers — as most recently illustrated by their over-compliance with certain John Doe court orders emerging from the Madras High Court.

The second piece of bad news is the extension of the term of protection for photographs. It has gone from being “sixty years after publication” to “sixty years after the death of the photographer”. Sixty years from publication was already in excess of the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Now we are in excess of WIPO Copyright Treaty requirements, even though India is not a signatory. The possibility of grandchildren earning royalties does not serve as an incentive for shutterbugs to take more photos or better photos. It is not even clear if one can monetise the average photo after the first decade. Therefore, the global public domain has been substantially impoverished, without any evidence that this will make the photographers reciprocally wealthier.

It does not stop there. In the age of hip-hop, trance, jhankar beats and turntables, one would have hoped that our law-makers would at least get the provision for “cover versions” or “remixes” right. Cover versions in India are doubly useful both in terms of aesthetics and profits — and yet the relevant provision can only be described as mediaeval. Cover versions can be produced only after a gap of five years; they have to be restricted to the same medium as the original; payment from them must be made in advance for 5,000 copies (should all those who sang commercially viable cover violations of “Kolaveri Di” be considered lawbreakers?); and there are strict limits on what are acceptable alterations to the original. The “alterations” have to be “reasonable” and “technically necessary”. Today, affordable yet sophisticated multimedia technologies allow teenagers to build professional sound recording studios in their bedrooms — and our government is seeking to restrict them to boring word-for-word and note-for-note covers.

And it gets worse. Bowing to pressure from foreign publishers’ associations, the government deleted the “parallel importation” provision at the last minute. The inclusion of this provision would have made it clear that works reproduced with the rights-holders’ permission in other countries could be imported into India. Foreign publishers and their lobbyists went all-out with a propaganda campaign predicting a dystopia filled with pirated books, surplus books dumped from overseas and starving, uncompensated authors. Had our government not caved, this clarification in law would have gone a long way in dismantling distribution monopolies and made the market much more competitive. The resultant increase in choice and reduction in cost would have benefited everyone. Human Resources Development Minister Sibal promised both Houses during the passage of the amendment that he would revisit this, and let’s hope he does so — especially for our libraries and our second-hand book stores, and for the students and disabled amongst us.

The writer is at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. sunil@cis-india.org

Click to read the original published by Business Standard.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/copyright-amendment

IPv6: Embrace The Change

nishant — 2012-06-13T06:09:43Z

A moment of transition is always filled with anxiety. There is concern over the unknown and there is a reluctance to move out of the familiar. However, a transition does not necessarily mean migration; or in other words, as we transition to IPv6 as the new protocol for digital and electronic communication, it does not mean that we are going to abandon the internet as we know it.

In fact, for most of the users, it is going to be a transparent transition, where their devices are going to be able to harness the powers of IPv4 and 6. While there are huge benefits at the back-end, leading to better security protocols and low maintenance, there are a few advantages that the user should also celebrate.

Faster Internet: Because IPv6 will open up a huge range of IP addresses, direct routing of data becomes a possibility. As data does not have to be routed through many servers or nodes within a network, it can reach its destination faster. With the way our digital access and sharing is going right now, this is not to be taken lightly. In many ways this is the same transition we had from the dial-up connections, where the transfer of picture and video files within minutes was totally unheard of, while now we’re in an age where we stream high density video on all our computing devices with ease.

More collaborative and shared Internet: With the abundance of IP addresses coming our way, there is going to be more scope for multiple devices to be connected online. New platforms of collaborative knowledge production and sharing can be designed to become infinite and inclusive in their scale and architecture.

More connected devices: The inter-operability features of IPv6 ensure that more devices are able to communicate with each other with ease. The science-fiction futuristic dream of a completely connected environment where human and artificial intelligence can work together, using a range of devices, is actually a material possibility with large scale IPv6 implementation. This can also trigger new innovation that helps reconstruct some of our existing devices in new forms and shapes.

While affordability and the migration to new network infrastructure are the gating factors to this transition, these are diminishing costs and we are looking at more interesting internet architecture as we move towards IPv6. Perhaps, one of the most reassuring points of this transition is that we do not need to abandon the familiar internet we are already working with; the transition is not a moving on, but a moving to, and in it are the promises of a safe, secure and speedy internet. Global technology organisations like Tata Communications have embraced this change; it’s only a matter of time before others too recognise the need for IPv6 and the huge difference it will make to our lives.

This communique is brought to you by Tata Communications and the Centre for Internet and Society.

Nishant Shah is Director-Research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society.

If you would like any further information on IPv6 at Tata Communications, please reach out to: divya.anand@tatacommunications.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ip-v-6-embrace-the-change

A Ludicrous Ban

Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang — 2012-06-04T04:22:11Z

Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang have written an article for the Open Magazine about the bizarre ways in which the Internet is regulated in 21st century India.

Small acts can have outsize consequences. In 15th century England, Richard III lamented that for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. In 21st century India, the question is this: for want of copyright protection for a single film, will the whole Internet be lost? On 29 March 2012, the Madras High Court issued an order whose effect Internet users in the country are still reeling from. As we go to press, most Internet users in India are unable to access a number of popular websites that millions of people around the world use every day. These banned websites are not forums for human trafficking or illegal weapon sales, but merely extensions of ordinary human activity like learning, sharing and growing—activities that are particularly well facilitated by the Internet. That the websites have been banned is of great concern; that the order purportedly banning them, and its effect, are both inexplicable and badly understood is of greater concern still.

How did we get here?

These are the facts. Earlier in the year, a little-known Chennai firm called Copyright Labs filed a petition on behalf of RK Productions, seeking protection for their client’s upcoming release—the Tamil film 3—against copyright infringement on the Internet. The film had not opened to audiences yet; the petition sought pre-emptive protection. In response, the Madras High Court passed a ‘John Doe’ order—John Doe being American shorthand for the anonymous everyman—which has a wide, sweeping scope and is designed to protect against potential offences by necessarily nameless persons, or in other words, everyone. The order applied to several Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as the aforesaid nameless persons (the John Doe of India is, apparently, ‘Ashok Kumar’), binding them, and their heirs, assignees, representatives and the whole shebang, against infringing copyright in relation to the film on networks they administer.

In apparent compliance with the John Doe order, Indian ISPs reacted with obsequious haste, in singular—and totally arbitrary—fashion. Between them, they have blocked a range of torrent sites (like the Pirate Bay, which is always Target No. 1, regardless of the circumstances), a few video-sharing sites like Vimeo and DailyMotion, and for good measure, some unrelated and completely irrelevant websites such as Xmarks, which allows users to share and sync bookmarks, and Pastebin, a service to store text and code. The weirdest aspect of this countrywide clampdown on a large chunk of the Internet is that the Madras High Court order did not actually specify any websites to block at all. How—and why—the ISPs zeroed in on these particular entities remains a mystery.

The Pirate Bay certainly hosts large amounts of pirated material, but it is also in some part a way to distribute legitimate content legitimately; Vimeo, on the other hand, is the distribution channel of choice for independent films uploaded by the filmmakers themselves; Pastebin has strict policies that are respectful of copyright and is mostly used by free and open source developers to tweak and relay copyright-free software. The sweep of this clampdown by the ISPs defies logic by deeming everything illegal: the wedding video that we cherish and put up to share with our friends, the small, independently financed film we wish to distribute electronically, the piece of free and open source software we just improved upon and would like the world to know about. Luckily for us, any blocking action imposed by local ISPs can be easily subverted by going through a virtual private network—a proxy—and if you’d like to see just how easy and quick this is to execute, please go to http://anonymouse.org. You’re welcome.

But first, the law. There is some confusion as to whether blocking whole websites for copyright infringement is legally permissible, and the answer is mostly no—and partly yes. The procedure for blocking websites in India is governed by Section 69A of the Information Techno- logy Act 2000, as amended in 2008 (the IT Act). Section 69A of the IT Act gives the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of very specific circumstances, namely: a) in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of lndia, b) for the defence of India, c) for the security of the State, d) for friendly relations with foreign States, e) for public order, or f) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to the previous points. Failure to comply with a blocking order thus issued is punishable by imprisonment and fines.

Importantly, however, neither copyright infringement nor obscenity (the other popular trigger for censorious actions) is listed as grounds for which a website may be blocked. Sure, the IT Act has specific provisions that lay out the consequences of transmitting obscene material and the infringement of copyright, but being blocked is not one of them. On the basis of its powers under Section 69A(2), the government has laid out procedures for blocking websites and notified the Information Technology Rules, 2009 (with the ‘Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public’), as well as designated nodal officers who can receive these complaints under the Act.

Section 6 of these IT Rules lays out a clear procedure for initiating and implementing a block. The procedure not only involves a thorough examination of the claims, but also reiterates the grounds under which a request for a block might be permissible, namely, the conditions laid out in the IT Act. Section 7 of the same IT Rules lays out the procedure for examination of the request and places it in the hands of a committee; the procedure involves the participation of several high-ranking officials and outlines detailed steps, such as contacting the potentially offending parties and giving them time to respond or take action as appropriate, only after which blocking may be deployed if still necessary.

The law is clear that copyright infringement cannot be legitimate grounds for the blocking of a website. Section 79 of the IT Act, in fact, explicitly provides safe harbour for ISPs, though the controversial Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011, have made a mockery of this section. These Intermediary Rules are currently the subject of heated debate, with many civil society organisations and even some parliamentarians calling for them to be repealed. (You can learn more about the protests at www.it2011.in).

As things stand, a copyright holder can ask for the removal of infringing content by sending a take-down notice under the provisions of the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, however flawed they are, or by asking for a John Doe order. A take-down notice is a complaint by the copyright holder to a website, indicating the specific uniform resource locator (URL) where the infringement is allegedly happening. It is a procedure further reinforced in the 2012 amendment to the Indian Copyright Act, which reiterates the rights of intermediaries, such as ISPs, to transmit any potentially infringing content until a take-down notice is sent and examined. A John Doe order, by its wide, sweeping nature, is normally exercised with the greatest caution, and only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. John Doe orders do not provide for public examination and discussion of claims; they do not allow any other side—other than the petitioning party—to state their case; and they can be badly misunderstood by the parties involved, as vividly demonstrated in this case.

In this case, both the petition and the order are questionable in several ways. The Tamil film 3—starring Dhanush and Shruti Haasan and directed by Rajini- kanth’s daughter Aishwarya—is not exceptional. It is one of the hundreds of Tamil films made this year, following on from the thousands of Tamil films made thus far. There is no particular reason why this film alone is worthy of a John Doe order. Ironically, it is exceptional only in that until Copyright Labs’ petition, the film served as a working demonstration of the benefits of a free and open Internet: the reason we knew of the film was the massive publicity generated by the viral hit ‘Kolaveri Di’—a song whose popularity spiralled by being shared freely and widely, regardless of copyright ownership. In the case of ‘Kolaveri Di,’ the producers saw the piracy of the song as publicity, and encouraged it. Then, it would seem, they decided that any piracy of the film was, well, piracy—and decided to stop it in the most insensible and ruthless manner possible. And there you have it: not only can you now have your cake and eat it too, you can also smash it in the faces of millions of users with impunity.

Copyright Labs, the previously unknown firm in Chennai that acted for the producers of 3 appears to be run by one Harish Ram, whose Twitter feed covers the catastrophe in revealing detail. Facing the wrath of fellow tweeters who were outraged at their inability to access their favourite websites, his collected responses on the handle @harishramlh instructively outline the disastrous way by which the court order he wanted has been implemented. Harish claims that his firm was forced to take action because infringing sites “don’t respond”. His cry for help would be plausible except for one inconvenient detail: the film 3 released on 30 March 2012, and the John Doe order was obtained on 29 March 2012—a day before the film’s release. What kind of piracy could Copyright Labs have been trying to battle unsuccessfully prior to the film’s release? There are instances of pre-screening prints of a film making it to torrent sites, though these are rare. Most often, the piracy of a film only happens after its public release. At the time of Copyright Labs’ petition, it is likely that very few or no take-down notices had been served because very few or no infringing acts had been committed yet: this is the very basis of the petition and ensuing order. (A quick search on Pirate Bay confirms that the only torrents related to the film are dated after its release, and not before). A little while later, perhaps upon discovering that he too cannot watch his best friend’s wedding video on Vimeo, Harish casually tweets that he has “written to unblock the whole site and block only specific piracy links” and presto, Vimeo is unblocked.

Regulators, take note. This is how the Internet is governed in 21st century India: by the fluctuating whims of an excited young man in Chennai in possession of a court order he neither deserves nor understands.

Thanks to the fact that our governments and corporations are constantly fantasising about how to censor our Internet (and frequently succeeding), the people who bring us the Internet, the hapless ISPs, have been beaten into submission; they now jump to the mildest murmur of reproach with wildly imaginative and unduly overreaching reactions. The last thing we need in an online environment full of dirty tricks is more dirty tricks. If anyone in power has any desire to keep the Internet working for the millions of Indians who prosper by it, safe harbour for ISPs must be restored in the IT Act—and the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules must be repealed.

Our courts cannot be used as quack-houses to buy pills for imaginary problems. The copyright industry is not a sick patient; it’s just a hypochondriac. Films don’t fail because of piracy; they fail because they’re not worth watching. The most popular films in this country are also the most pirated, and yet they remain money-spinners. The real problem is the unbending inability of this industry to adjust to the world; to the Internet; to the life-changing technologies that human beings have witnessed and embraced and prospered by over the past two decades. Instead of responding to these changes creatively, film producers and music distributors think that digging in their heels and acting like petulant children is going to delude consumers into seeing them as something grander than they are. The reality is that they are simply packers of culture and knowledge who aren’t even wrapping up their products competently. For now, though, these children have been given a nuclear bomb to play with, and they just used it to kill a cockroach. Beware the radiation.

Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and researcher at the Alternative Law Forum; Achal Prabhala is a writer and researcher in Bangalore

Click to read the original published in the Open Magazine on June 2, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/a-ludicrous-ban

Beyond Sharing: Towards our Digital Futures

nishant — 2012-06-01T04:39:12Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for New Principles

praskrishna — 2012-06-01T04:29:36Z

This event organised by Max Planck Institute was held in Munich, Germany on May 14 and 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event.

List of Participants

Name	Affiliation
Mr. Olatunji Babatunde Adetula	Director, Nigerian Copyright Commission
Prof. Olufunmilayo Arewa	African University for Science and Technology & University of California School of Law, Irvine
Prof. Michael W. Carroll	Professor of Law, Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Washington College of Law
Mr. Alberto Cerda Silva	S.J.D. Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Research Associate,Knowledge Ecology International
Ms. Vera Franz	Senior Program Manager Open Society Information Program Open Society Foundations
Prof. Christophe Geiger	Associate Professor Director General Director of the Research Department CEIPI, Université de Strasbourg
Prof. Daniel Gervais	FedEx Research Professor of Law Co-Director, Vanderbilt Intellectual Property Program Vanderbilt University Law School
Ms. Cristiana Gonzalez	Senior Researcher Universidade de São Paulo
Ms. Teresa Hackett	Programme Manager EIFL
Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty	Managing Director Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich Honorary Professor at the University of Munich Max Planck Institute
Dr. Zorina Khan	Professor Department of Economics Bowdoin College
Dr. Kaya Köklü	Senior Research Fellow Intellectual Property and Competition Law Max Planck Institute
Ms. Eniko Kovacs	Program Manager Academic Fellowship Program, HESP Open Society Foundations
Mr. Ahmed Abdel Latif	Intellectual Property and Technology Senior Programme Manager International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
Ms. Mayara Nascimento Santos Leal	Division of Intellectual Property Economic Department Ministry of External Relations, Brazil
Prof. Lydia Loren	Professor of Law Kay Kitagawa & Andy Johnson-Laird IP Faculty Scholar Lewis & Clark Law School
Ms. Viviana Munoz Tellez	Programme Officer, IAKP The South Centre
Prof. Ruth Okediji	William L. Prosser Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School
Mr. Pranesh Prakash	Programme Manager The Center for Internet and Society
Mr. G.R. Raghavender	Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP & CR) Copyright Office Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development
Prof. Jerome H. Reichman	Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law Duke University Law School
Dr. Manon Ress	Director of Information Society Projects Knowledge Ecology International
Ms. Carolina Rossini	Senior Fellow at GPOPAI, University of Sao Paulo
Dr. Susan Strba	Expert and Author, Copyright L&Es for Education in Africa
Mr. Luis Villaroel Villalon	Director de Investigación Corporación Innovarte
Dr. Moktar Warida	First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the United Nations
Ms. Raquel Xalabarder Plantada	Director, Learning Resources Vice President’s Office, Faculty and Academic Organization Open University of Catalonia

Workshop Associates

Name	Affiliation
Lindsey Niznik	Senior, University of Minnesota
Peju Solarin	Doctoral Candidate International Max Planck Research School on Retaliation, Mediation, and Punishment, Max Planck Institute

See the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-on-education-and-copyright

Resisting Revolutions

praskrishna — 2012-05-29T10:28:17Z

Nishant Shah's peer reviewed journal article was published in Democracy, Volume 55, Issue 2.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/resisting-revolutions.pdf

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T06:08:57Z

The publishing industry seems to have got the better of the Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal. Pranesh Prakash's article on parallel importation of books is referred in this article published in FirstPost on May 25, 2012.

The move to open up the market for distribution of international books to competition has been successfully thwarted with the removal of an amendment allowing parallel imports from the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 that was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 May.

This despite the Parliamentary Standing Committee supporting the amendment on the grounds that it will increase student access to books.

But it could well only be a temporary victory for the publishing giants with Sibal promising to restore the amendment if the National Council of Applied Economic Research – to which the matter has been referred – should in its report (expected in August) recommend parallel imports.

The draft bill (which included the amendment) had created a furore in publishing circles last year. Parallel imports, claimed leading publishing houses, would destroy the industry. Read Thomas Abraham’s Death of Books published last year in The Hindustan Times.

While that remains open for debate, there is no denying the larger common good of faster and cheaper availability of books to millions of students that parallel imports will make possible. Ordering books may no longer be a click away if Flipkart had to take permission from the Indian copyright owner every time you ordered an international title.

In an article titled Why Parallel Importation of Books should be Allowed published by The Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash makes a compelling case for ending the distribution monopoly.

Underlying the huge benefit to students, the author says “Currently a large percentage of educational books in India are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition, the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an authorisation to import books—the licence raj that currently exists would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit.

“This is especially important for students and for libraries because even when low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.”

The article also argues how the business model of hugely popular site such as Flipkart depends on parallel imports to deliver books to its customers at great bargains.

Allowing parallel imports, argues the author, will dismantle distribution monopoly rights and help book publishers, libraries, the print-disabled and consumers in general. He also makes the important distinction between the black market and parallel imports, which is legal.

Offering a point-by-point rebuttal of the publishing industry’s claims of the destructive impact of parallel imports, the author observes “It seems to us that the publishing industry – especially foreign publishers with distributorship in India – don’t want to open themselves up to competition in the distribution market and are opposing this most commendable move.”

He concludes that allowing parallel imports will, in fact, result in an expansion of the reading market.

“It is mainly foreign publishers’ monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.”

Read the original from FirstPost.India

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers

John Doe order in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. (movie 7 Khoon Maaf)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T20:09:27Z

This is the case filed by UTV Software Communication against Home cable Network and other uknown network operators. restraining them from infringing the copyrights under Section 14(1) and Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for its movie '7 Khoon maaf' and 'Thank You' and the Court granted an interim injunction called 'john doe' order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) No. 821/2011

UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi
Prakash, Mr. Varun Pathak, Adv. ,
Ms. Avni Singh, Adv.

versus

HOME CABLE NETWORK LTD and ORS ..... Defendants
Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

O R D E R
04.04.2011

IA No.5384/2011

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CS(OS) No.821/2011
Subject to the plaintiff taking steps within one week, issue summons in the suit to the defendants by ordinary process, registered cover and through approved courier, returnable on 14th July, 2011 before the Joint Registrar.
The summons to the defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within four weeks of the receipt of the summons. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replicationand rejoinder within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy of the written statement and reply.
In case the written statement is not filed within the time stipulated above, the same shall be taken on record only subject to imposition of heavy costs.
The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims alongwith their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance which shall be also filed within the pleadings.
Admission/denial of documents shall be filed on affidavit by the parties within two weeks of the completion of the pleadings. The affidavit shall include the list of the documents of the other party. The deponent shall indicate its position with regard to the documents against the particulars of each document.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that without prejudice to its rights, contentions and claims in the suit, his client would be willing to explore the possibility of settlement by recourse to mediation.
The summons shall indicate that it is open to the parties to access the facility of negotiating a settlement with the other side before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the court complex. In case the defendants are so desirous of pursuing negotiations, it shall be open to them to do so. Such participation in the mediation shall be without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit.
In such eventuality, the defendant shall inform the plaintiff as well as his counsel of the same by a written notice. Such written notices shall be treated as consent of the parties to the mediation process.
The plaintiff and/or defendants may then approach the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for facilitating mediation in the matter. Any or both of the parties shall place the copy of this order as well as the written notice before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre which shall proceed in accordance with the rules of the Centre.
During the course of mediation, it shall be open to the mediator to join any other person(s) considered necessary for effective mediation and dispute resolution.
The Registry shall enclose the information brochure published by Samadhan the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with the summons.
The parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 14th July, 2011.
The matter shall be fixed before the court for reporting outcome of the mediation/framing of issues on 15th September, 2011.
The schedule fixed by this order shall not be interdicted by the pendency of the matter in mediation. IA No. 5383/2011 (Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC).
Issue notice, returnable on 15th September, 2011.
The plaintiff is the producer/co-producer/distributor of several movies detailed in the plaint including the film "7 Khoon Maaf" which has been recently released. It is asserted that the latest film produced by the plaintiff titled "Thank you" is to be released on 8th April, 2011.
The suit has been necessitated for the reason that the plaintiff has experienced large scale violation of its copyright in earlier films produced by it by several known and unknown cable operators who telecast pirated version of the films of the plaintiff on cable networks, violating rights of the plaintiff and causing irreparable loss and damage. A single telecast by the defendants and other operators would simultaneously reach several hundred thousand homes. As a result, the loss which results to the plaintiff is irreparable and cannot be computed in terms of money.
The plaintiff also complains that additionally the quality of the film which is telecast by these cable operators is inferior and impacts its reputation. Loss to the exchequer by way of collection of entertainment tax, etc. has been also pointed out.
Based on its past experience, it is urged by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that an investigation was undertaken into the business being run by the defendant no.1 and extensive positive information with regard to the violation of the plaintiff?s copyright in the plaintiff's film "7 Khoon Maaf", has been received. The investigation report obtained by the plaintiff has been placed on record.
It has also been urged at great length that apart from the cable operators who have been arrayed as defendants, there are several other cable operators in the field who operate in an identical manner to cause violation of the plaintiff?s copyright. The plaintiff is not able to establish the full particulars of these persons which have consequently not been placed in the plaint. Such persons have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos.19 to 50 named as ?Mr. Ashok Kumar?. The plaintiff urges that these defendants are unknown identities who would also telecast the unauthorizedly and illegally telecast pirated version of the plaintiff's films by their network without any licence.
The plaintiff invokes the inherent power of this court under Section 151 of the CPC to evolve a fair and reasonable procedure to address the peculiar facts and circumstances over the pleaded violations by the defendants including defendant nos.19 to 50. In this regard, reliance is placed on the internationally adopted "John Doe" practice obtaining in USA, Canada, UK, Australia and other jurisdictions as well as this country's obligation under the TRIPPS agreement to effectively enforce IPR rights of parties including those as in the present one. It is urged that a similar order deserves to be passed in the present case.
In support of this submission, my attention has been drawn to a judgment dated 14th June, 2002 passed in CS(OS) No. 1072/2002 Taj Television Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. reported at 2003 FSR 22 on similar facts, this court had noticed the following submissions of counsel for the plaintiff seeking a John Doe order:- 11. Mr. Anand submitted that conduct of various unscrupulous cable channel companies/distributors such as the defendants is well known. The aspect of channel is being illegally aired on the local cable networks has almost taken on a regular feature. He prayed that in the facts and circumstances apart from giving necessary directions be also given for defendant Nos. 7 to 20, in other words, the court may pass "John Doe" orders.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on Trade Marks Law of Canada in which it is mentioned that John Doe? orders enabling the order to be served upon persons whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff at the time the action was commenced, but whose activity falls within the scope of the action. This form of naming a party is considered a mere "misnomer", and as long as the "litigating finger" is pointed at such person then the misnomer is not fatal. This proposition has been taken from Jackson v/s Bubels (1972) 28 DLT. (3d) 500 (B.C.C.A.) and Dukoff vs.Teronto General Hospital (1986),54,O.R.(2d) 50(H.C.).

Mr. Anand submitted that ?John Doe? orders are passed by American, English, Canadian and Australian Courts frequently. He further submitted that this court also possesses enormous inherent powers to formulate the orders which are necessary to meet the peculiar facts and peculiar situations., In the first U.S. Federal "John Doe" order, Shaw vs Various John Does, No 80 Civ,722 (S.D.N.Y.Fe,6,1980) the court held that a court of equity was always free to fashion a decree in keeping with the needs of the litigants. Similarly, in Billy Joel vs. Various John Does, 1980 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12841 the Court held:

Were the Injunction to be denied, Plaintiffs would be without any legal means to prevent what is clearly a blatant infringement of their valid property rights. While the proposed remedy is novel, that in itself should not weigh against its adoption by this court. A court of equity is free to fashion whatever remedies will adequately protect the rights for the parties before it.

Mr. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. The Court held that the inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore, it must be held that the court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature. Mr. Anand placed reliance on EMI Records Ltd . v. Kudhail and others (1985) FSR 36, (1983) Com LR 280.

Mr. Anand , Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has made references to a large number of Canadian, Australian, English and American cases but I would not like to burden this order with all the judgments on which reliance has been placed at this stage. Since ?John Doe? orders are passed in the court of Canada, America, England, Australia and in some other countries. The judicial systems of all these countries have basic similarity with our judicial system. Therefore, looking to the extra ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice the courts in India would also be justified in passing "John Doe" orders. It is noteworthy that after such finding keeping in view the peculiar facts of the CS(OS) No. 1072/2002, a John Doe order was not passed.
My attention has also been drawn to an order dated 24th November, 2006 in CS(OS) No. 2189/2006 wherein the court has granted an injunction order in terms of the above observations. This court as such has the jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of a John Doe order injunction unknown persons in circumstances as have been pleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following observations of the court in Tej Television (Supra) in the context of cable operators:-
I have carefully considered the relevant documents, averments of the application and judgments of various courts. Undoubtedly, the cable operators in India have a long history of violating copyrights. A very large number of court orders are testimony to this. The cable operators are encouraged owning to the unique nature of cable piracy and the unstructured nature of the cable industry, the speed with which any trace of infringement can be erased by the cable operators, enforcement of rights in conservative nature is unlikely to effectively redress the plaintiffs' grievance.
The plaintiff has approached this court seeking protection of its valuable rights against such unwarranted, unauthorized and illegal actions of the defendants nos. 1 to 18 as well as the Mr. Ashok Kumars arrayed as defendant nos. 19 to 50 which have violated and diluted the exclusive copyright vested with the plaintiff in respect of the films "7 Khoon Maaf". The plaintiff has expressed apprehensions that the defendants would violate the plaintiff's rights in its film "Thank You".
The plaintiff has asserted violation of its rights and violations of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Cable Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 before this court. The material placed before this court would show that the plaintiff has copyright in the films produced by it and only authorized licensees can telecast the films.
The plaintiff has specifically averred that the defendants in the suit have not signed any agreement with regard to the film. As such telecast of these films is violative of section 14(1)(d) and 16 of the Copyright Act.
It is urged that unauthorized cable transmission of the plaintiff's films shall result in irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff. It would also encourage other cable operators who have currently procured licenses/entered into agreements with the plaintiff and possess valid license/agreements, to also telecast the films without making necessary payments. In support of the grievance that the damage would be irreparable, it is pointed out that the cable industry has an unstructured composition and it would be impossible to assess the damages which may result on account of unauthorized telecast/broadcast/distribution.
The modus operandi adopted by unauthorized cable operators is to prepare poor copies of the films when they are being screened in the picture hall and telecast the same on their network to cable homes attached to them. It would appear that public interest would also suffer on account of poor programme quality. There is prima facie substance in the plaintiff's contention that the same would impact the plaintiffs reputation as well.
In view of the foregoing, it would prima facie appear that unlicensed broadcast of the reproduction rights vested in the plaintiff by telecasting the plaintiff's films "7 Khoon Maaf" and the forthcoming film "Thank You" in the foregoing manner is illegal, unfair and deserves to be prohibited. Consequently, unless injunction as prayed for is granted by this court, the business of the plaintiff herein would be irreparably impacted. Balance of convenience and interest of justice are in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
It is accordingly directed as follows :-
(i) that the defendants/their agents, representatives, franchisees, sub-operators, head ends and/or anyone claiming under them are hereby restrained from telecasting or in any other manner communicating to the viewing pubic/subscribers either by means of wireless diffusion or by wire a pirated version of the films "7 Khoon Maaf" and "Thank You" and/or in any other manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff therein.
(ii) It is further directed that till the present order is vacated or modified, the direction shall operate against the defendants, their agents,representatives, franchises, sub-operators or any person claiming under them an injunction.
(iii) Further injunction in terms of serial no. (i) above is passed against un-named and undisclosed persons who may be likewise committing breach of the rights of the plaintiff in a similar manner.
(iv) The SHO/Superintendent of the concerned police station(s) are directed to render assistance to the plaintiff should any be required for purposes of enforcement of the present order as it is the obligation of the police authorities and the State to enforce judicial orders passed.
(v) The plaintiff is permitted to publish the John Doe injunction order issued today in local newspapers in all states where it has expressed apprehensions of violation of its rights. Consequences in accordance with law would thereafter follow.
(vi) The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of the proviso to rule 3 of order 39 of the CPC within a period of ten days from today.

Copy of this order be given dasti as well as dasti under the signatures of the court master of this court.

GITA MITTAL, J
APRIL 04, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-utv-communications-v.-home-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-7-khoon-maaf

Centre for Internet and Society

Read Our Annual Reports and Audit Reports

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2024-2025

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2023-2024

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2022-2023

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2021-2022

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2020-2021

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2020-21

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2019-2020

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2018-19

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2019-20

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2017-18

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2016-17

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2015-16

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2014-15

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2013-14

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2012-13

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2011-12

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2010-11

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2009-10

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2008-09