9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

SearchSite

Accessibility
Telecom
Blogs

Access to Knowledge

Openness

Internet Governance

RAW

Events

News & Media

Publications

Comic

Resources

A Ludicrous Ban
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
growingactivities 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 clients upcoming releasethe
Tamil film 3against 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 orderJohn Doe being American shorthand for the anonymous everyman
http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

1/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

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
singularand totally arbitraryfashion. 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 videosharing 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. Howand whythe 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 networka proxyand if youd like to see just how easy and quick this is to
execute, please go to http://anonymouse.org. Youre 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 noand 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.
http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

2/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

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 highranking 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 sideother than the petitioning partyto 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- kanths daughter Aishwaryais 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 Dia 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, piracyand 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
http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

3/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

way by which the court order he wanted has been implemented. Harish claims that his firm was
forced to take action because infringing sites dont 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 2012a day before the films release. What kind of piracy could
Copyright Labs have been trying to battle unsuccessfully prior to the films 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 friends 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 Actand 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; its just a hypochondriac. Films dont fail because of piracy; they fail
because theyre 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 arent 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
Send this
Filed under: Copyright, Access to Knowledge

http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

4/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

Logintoaddcomments
The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of their individual authors. Unless the opposite is explicitly stated, or
unless the opposite may be reasonably inferred, CIS does not subscribe to these views and opinions which belong to their
individual authors. CIS does not accept any responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the views and opinions of these individual authors.
For an official statement from CIS on a particular issue, please contact us directly.

Meta
04 June, 2012
Copyright, Access to Knowledge

Author

Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang

Events
Tulu Wikipedia edit-a-thon in Mangalore
Telugu Wikipedia edit-a-thon at Annamacharya library to preserve rare Telugu literature text
Odia Wikipedia Turning 13 this June 3
Train the Trainer Program
Poesis in the Information Age: Language and its Limit[ation]s

Site Map

Accessibility

Contact

Funded by

http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

5/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

Kusuma Trust
Kusuma Trust supports innovation, new developments in higher education, training and advocacy, all of which
have enormous potential to benefit society.

Support Us
Please help us defend citizen/user rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of The Centre for Internet
and Society and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, 560071.

Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to
engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To
discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil[at]cis-india[dot]org or
Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro[at]cis-india[dot]org, with an indication of the form
and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in.
In general, we offer financial support for collaborative/invited works only through public calls.

O ice Locations
Bengaluru: No. 194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, 560071. Location on Google Map.
Delhi: G15, Hauz Khas, Near G Block Market, Next to Crunch, New Delhi, 110016. Location on Google Map.

About Us
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research
on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital
accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness
(including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources,
and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The
academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and
structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.
Through its diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse and practices
around internet, technology and society in India, and elsewhere.
Annual Reports
Newsletters
Logos
People
Jobs
http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

6/7

9/29/2015

ALudicrousBanTheCentreforInternetandSociety

Centre for Internet & Society

Unless otherwise specified, content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.

http://cisindia.org/a2k/aludicrousban

7/7