The Madras HC’s June 15 order came after its April 25 John Doe order led to ISPs blocking several websites. The move was criticized by internet users and led to protests against web censorship in the country.
NEW DELHI: If you are sick and tired of your internet service provider frequently blocking some popular websites, you can relax now. TheMadras high court has ruled that its April 25 order against internet piracy should not be used to block the entire website; only specific web links should be blocked.
On an appeal filed by a group of internet service providers, the court in a June 15 order clarified that the content owners should give ISPs the specific web links through which the copyrighted material was being shared so that the ISPs could block them. Following the HC order, most of the websites blocked by ISPs, except Piratebay, have become accessible again.
In recent months, there has been a spurt in John Doe orders — orders against unnamed entities — in India. Film producers have gone to various courts and obtained such orders against those who might pirate their films. This has invariably happened a day or two before the release of the film. Armed with these orders, film producers have prevailed upon ISPs to block entire websites, leading to resentment among web users and a wave of protests by net activists.
The high court's June 15 order came after its April 25 John Doe order led to ISPs blocking several websites, including Vimeo. The move was severely criticized by internet users in India, who blamed ISPs for the inconvenience caused to them. The blocking of websites also prompted Anonymous, a hacker collective, to raise concerns over what it perceived as web censorship. Anonymous attacked several government websites in protest and even organized real-world protests in several cities.
The high court in its latest order said: "The interim injunction [dated April 25] is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours."
Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based thinktank that tracks internet policy, said the court clarification was much needed.
"There are two problems with John Doe orders. They lack specificity. It's against an anonymous infringer. These orders also allow petitioners to misuse them as they demand complete blocking of websites without taking recourse to identifying the pirates and the URLs through which copyright material is being shared," Abraham said. "The latest court order addresses these issues. By asking ISPs to only block specific URLs it addresses major concerns about John Doe orders."
John Doe, a virtually unknown entity in this country, has of late become the favourite of film producers. Reliance Entertainment obtained several John Doe orders last year. Recently producers of "Gangs of Wasseypur" obtained such an order. After the film's director, Anurag Kashyap, received negative feedback from web users on Twitter, he said, "When my films were pirated, my investors and studio never blamed me for it but when the studio got a John Doe order for GoW, the internet blames me."
At the same time, he claimed he would try his best to make sure web users didn't suffer blanket bans on websites because of the order.
"The order has been taken by investing parties to protect their investment but they have assured me that it will be used responsibly. I can argue with them about not taking down entire sites and just the URLs, and they have assured they will do that," he tweeted.
Times View
The Madras high court order is a welcome step in guarding the rights of internet users. The internet is all about freedom of choice and free flow of information. Therefore, entire websites should not be blocked just because there might be some illegal content on them. Only specific URLs where pirated content is available should be blocked. An entire website may be blocked only when government and industry agree that it deals predominantly in pirated stuff. There should also be quick redress of copyright owners' grievances — illegal content should be blocked within, say, six hours, of verification. Websites on which a huge chunk of the content is illegal should be blocked for a specified period, say, three months, and given a chance to mend their ways. How huge is 'huge' — 5%, 10% or 15%? That may be decided by a committee comprising representatives of government and industry. The numbers mentioned here may sound arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere.
On an appeal filed by a group of internet service providers, the court in a June 15 order clarified that the content owners should give ISPs the specific web links through which the copyrighted material was being shared so that the ISPs could block them. Following the HC order, most of the websites blocked by ISPs, except Piratebay, have become accessible again.
In recent months, there has been a spurt in John Doe orders — orders against unnamed entities — in India. Film producers have gone to various courts and obtained such orders against those who might pirate their films. This has invariably happened a day or two before the release of the film. Armed with these orders, film producers have prevailed upon ISPs to block entire websites, leading to resentment among web users and a wave of protests by net activists.
The high court's June 15 order came after its April 25 John Doe order led to ISPs blocking several websites, including Vimeo. The move was severely criticized by internet users in India, who blamed ISPs for the inconvenience caused to them. The blocking of websites also prompted Anonymous, a hacker collective, to raise concerns over what it perceived as web censorship. Anonymous attacked several government websites in protest and even organized real-world protests in several cities.
The high court in its latest order said: "The interim injunction [dated April 25] is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours."
Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based thinktank that tracks internet policy, said the court clarification was much needed.
"There are two problems with John Doe orders. They lack specificity. It's against an anonymous infringer. These orders also allow petitioners to misuse them as they demand complete blocking of websites without taking recourse to identifying the pirates and the URLs through which copyright material is being shared," Abraham said. "The latest court order addresses these issues. By asking ISPs to only block specific URLs it addresses major concerns about John Doe orders."
John Doe, a virtually unknown entity in this country, has of late become the favourite of film producers. Reliance Entertainment obtained several John Doe orders last year. Recently producers of "Gangs of Wasseypur" obtained such an order. After the film's director, Anurag Kashyap, received negative feedback from web users on Twitter, he said, "When my films were pirated, my investors and studio never blamed me for it but when the studio got a John Doe order for GoW, the internet blames me."
At the same time, he claimed he would try his best to make sure web users didn't suffer blanket bans on websites because of the order.
"The order has been taken by investing parties to protect their investment but they have assured me that it will be used responsibly. I can argue with them about not taking down entire sites and just the URLs, and they have assured they will do that," he tweeted.
Times View
The Madras high court order is a welcome step in guarding the rights of internet users. The internet is all about freedom of choice and free flow of information. Therefore, entire websites should not be blocked just because there might be some illegal content on them. Only specific URLs where pirated content is available should be blocked. An entire website may be blocked only when government and industry agree that it deals predominantly in pirated stuff. There should also be quick redress of copyright owners' grievances — illegal content should be blocked within, say, six hours, of verification. Websites on which a huge chunk of the content is illegal should be blocked for a specified period, say, three months, and given a chance to mend their ways. How huge is 'huge' — 5%, 10% or 15%? That may be decided by a committee comprising representatives of government and industry. The numbers mentioned here may sound arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment