Centre for Internet and Society

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 http://editors.cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers

Why this blocking di?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T05:47:20Z

In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.

The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.

Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.

The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Acting against unknown offenders

According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.

By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.

“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.

“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.

Carpet blocking websites

But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”

A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.

“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.

However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.

ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.

According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.

In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?

What is happening internationally

John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking

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 http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-utv-communications-v.-home-cable-network-and-ors.-movie-7-khoon-maaf

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T10:03:52Z

This is the case filed by Reliance Big Entertainment, producer of movie 'Boduguard' against Jyoti Cable Network and other unknown network operators restraining them from infringing their copyrights 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

20.07.2011
Present: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi and Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advs. for the Plaintiff.

I.A. No. 11242/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)

Exemption allowed, subject to filing of original documents, as mentioned in the application, by the plaintiff within 4 weeks.
Application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 11243/2011 (under Section 151 CPC)
Allowed, subject to all just exemptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 1724/2011

Plaint be registered as Suit. Summons be issued to the defendants through ordinary manner, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 30th September, 2011.
I.A. No. 11241/2011 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed. Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film "Singham". Plaintiff apprehends that the said movie will be copied and DVDs/CDs thereof will be prepared, distributed in the market as also shown on TV by the cable operators, thereby causing huge financial losses to the plaintiff. In case the film is shown on cable and internet, by the persons who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to see the film, resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. It is contended that copying and distributing the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCD, etc., by such unscrupulous persons has been noticed in respect of new releases in recent past. Such films are shown by the cable operators. It is further contended that plaintiff is able to find out the names of defendant nos. 1 to 5 who had been indulging in such activities. Apart from them, many unknown persons may also indulge in similar activity. Since names and addresses of such cable operators/persons are not known, they have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name of "Mr. Ashok Kumar". It is contended that in this regard "John Doe", practice may have to be resorted which is well recognized not only in United States of America, Canada, England and Australia but also in India. Reliance has been placed on Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003 FSR 22 and order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 in UTV Software Communications Limited vs. Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors.

Perusal of the orders, reliance whereupon has been placed by the plaintiff, shows that such unknown unauthorized persons can be arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 and "John Doe" order may be passed against such persons enabling plaintiff to serve order upon such persons when their identity is disclosed. Past practice of unauthorized persons indulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray disc and distributing the same has also been recognized in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff.

In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a prima facie case in its favour. Plaintiff has exclusive copyright over the film "Singham" which is yet to be released. In case, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD are made by unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie "Singham" in any manner without proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "Singham" through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within a week. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A.K. PATHAK, J.
July 20, 2011

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

praskrishna — 2012-05-26T04:17:46Z

Following the highly successful Internet at Liberty 2010, activists and experts from around the world converged on May 23-24 to explore the most pressing dilemmas and exciting opportunities around free expression in the digital age.

The Internet as a global, free, and open resource, is constantly developing. Over the past year we have seen how the Internet can shift power, broaden scope, and accelerate political and economic change. Simultaneously, governments and multinational companies shape what is possible online. Today, more than any time in history, technological and political forces are colliding to draw lines about how the Internet functions.

Internet at Liberty 2012, sponsored by Google, brought together global activists and representatives of academic centers, corporations, governments, the media and NGOs. The conference explored ways to expand the free flow of information online. Look for debates about today's most pressing internet freedom issues, and action-oriented workshops.

Agenda

= streamed live on the CitizenTube YouTube channel at youtube.com/citizentube

May 23, 2012

8:30 a.m.	Registration & Breakfast
9:30 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.	Welcome & Introduction
10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.	Plenary I Debate 1: Should laws and regulations that affect the Internet favor individuals over the state? Speakers: John Kampfner - Author and historian Noomane Fehri - Tunisian National Constitutional Assembly Renata Avila - Lawyer and Advocate for Transparency, Global Voices Stewart Baker - Former Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security Susan Glasser - Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy
11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m	Break
11:45 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.	Break-out Discussions
1.00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.	Lunch
2:15 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.	Workshop I Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
3:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.	Afternoon Break Research Displays
4:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.	Plenary II Debate 2: Is the Internet--and global communication among citizens--best served by today's organic mix of governing forces, or do we need a more centralized, global system? Speaker: Ben Wagner - European University Institute Gary Fowlie - Head, ITU Liaison Office to the United Nations Riz Khan (Moderator) - Reporter, Al Jazeera English
5:45 p.m. - 7.00 p.m.	Reception Research Displays
7.00 p.m.	Dinner Keynote Panel Speaker: Riz Khan - International Journalist, Television Host, Author at Al Jazeera English Sana Saleem Chiranuch “Jiew” Premchaiporn

See the original agenda in Google News

May 24, 2012

8:30 a.m. - 9.00 a.m	Registration & Breakfast
9.00 a.m. - 10.00 a.m.	Plenary III Research Lightning Round Speaker: Guy Berger, Mapping Digital Media Around the World Jeffrey Ghannam, Digital Media After the Arab Spring Katrin Verclas, Mobile Monitor Nadim Kobeissi, Securing Private Networks with Cryptocat Lucas Dixon, DDOS Protection Sarah Kendzior, The Impact of Social Media in Azerbaijan Claudio Ruiz, Freedom of Expression in Chile Christopher Fabian, uReport: UNICEF Innovations Nicklas Lunblad, Internet Freedom as Economics Issue Zeynep Tufekci
10.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.	Morning Break Research Displays
11.00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.	Workshop II Choice of workshops: New Frontiers in Citizen Journalism Economics of Internet Freedom Mobile Security Survival Guide: What Every Activist and Rights Defender Needs to Know About Communicating More Safely Video for Change: How To Create, Share and Use Video for Impact and Attention Social Media: Strategies & tools for advocacy campaigns Shielding the Messenger: Protecting platforms for free expression
	Lunch
1.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m.	Plenary IV Debate 3: In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom? Speaker: Sunil Abraham - Centre for Internet and Society Cynthia Wong - Center for Democracy and Technology Mohamed El Dahshan - writer, journalist Dunja Mijatović - OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Judy Woodruff (Moderator) - Senior Correspondent, PBS Newshour
3.00 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.	Closing Session

See the original agenda in Google News

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/internet-at-liberty-2012

3rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series at NLSIU, Bangalore

praskrishna — 2012-05-25T15:33:16Z

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology in association with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore is organising the 3rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The lecture series will be spread out over the course of the year and will include eminent speakers who will talk with the students and other interested persons on their topics of expertise.

To kick off the lecture series, Professor Rohan Samarajiva will deliver the inaugural lecture on Tariff Regulation in South Asia.

Tariff regulation has in the recent past attracted the attention of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal, as well as the Department of Telecom at the Union Ministry of Communications. India has a burgeoning and competitive cellular services provider market, and tariff regulation has far-reaching impact on the industry. Moreover, as aware consumers of mobile telephony and data services, this is an issue that is relevant for all of us.

Prof Samarajiva is a pre-eminent figure in policy-making and academia on the subject of information and communications technology, and this is an excellent opportunity to get his insights on the crucial topic, not just from an Indian perspective but from a pan-Asian viewpoint. He has taught at universities in USA, Netherlands and Sri Lanka and is currently Chairman & CEO, LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across 12 emerging Asian economies. He is also a Board member at Communication for Policy Research - South, which is a capacity building initiative to develop Asia-Pacific based policy initiatives on ICT policy regulation among junior to mid level scholars. His full profile can be accessed here.

The lecture will be organised at NLSIU, Bangalore on Sunday, the 27th of May, 2012 from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm. You are requested to take your seats by 5.20 pm. The hour-long session will include both a lecture and an interactive session with the speaker. Interested persons are requested to register for the lecture series by sending in an email to editorialboard@ijlt.in

The address of the venue is

National Law School of India University
Jnanabharati Road, Nagarbhavi
Bangalore - 560072
Google maps location: http://g.co/maps/ppwcr

Follow our event page ‘3rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series’ on Facebook to remain updated!

Download the event poster [PDF, 57 kb]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/ijlt-cis-lecture-series-nlsiu

3rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series in Bangalore

praskrishna — 2012-05-25T15:06:17Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/ijlt-cis-lecture-series.pdf

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T15:38:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.
Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.
Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.
Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.
Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?
Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?
For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?*

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.

Please note: Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 27, 2012	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 18, 2012	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
August 2012	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
September 2012	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2012	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship

Rajeev Chandrasekhar Urges PM To Withdraw India’s Proposal For UN Committee On Internet-Policy

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T12:07:25Z

Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar has written a letter to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to withdraw India’s proposal to UN seeking governance of Internet control.

Anupam Saxena's blog post was published in Medianama on May 16, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this.

In his letter, Chandresekhar has said that India’s proposal for setting up a United Nation Committee for Internet-Related Policies (UN CRP) is against the open, democratic, inclusive and unhindered growth of the internet, and harms India’s reputation.

He has also said that the proposal was submitted without any public consultation involving stakeholder groups, members of the civil society, private sector, technical and academic communities and others, since it represents their interests and would change their role completely, if accepted. He has pointed out that the internet was not built by governments and should not be regulated by them, and that there was no reason to change what is currently free, open and working well. He has said that the proposal doesn’t explain the reasons for the shift in the government’s stand.

Chandresekhar has expressed concern over the government’s proposal of establishing a body comprising of 50 politicians/ bureaucrats controlling the internet, while multi-stake holders move to an advisory role. He has called for the strengthening of the multi-stakeholder model, instead of letting a government body with the UN logo taking charge.

While we’re in agreement that there should be some focus on multi-stakeholder-ism, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, during an interview with MediaNama had shed some light on how the proposal might actually change the shape of things, and dilute the role of the US in internet governance. He had cited the examples of laws proposed in the House and the Senate in the US, including the ones allowing DNS Seizures, which could affect the whole world. So, these might not be as evil as they’re being perceived to be.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/withdraw-india-proposal-for-un-committee-on-internet-policy

MPs oppose curbs on internet; Sibal promises discussions

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T10:25:35Z

With MPs raising concerns over open-ended interpretations of restrictive terms in the rules seeking to regulate social media and internet, the government promised to evolve a consensus on points of contention.

Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article published by the Times of India on May 18, 2012

Telecom minister Kapil Sibal's assurance came at the end of an engrossing debate in Rajya Sabha on a motion moved by CPM MP P Rajeeve who said the rules violated freedom of expression and free speech.

He found support from leader of opposition Arun Jaitley who picked several examples to point out that terms or descriptions like "harmful", "blasphemous" and "defamatory" did not lend themselves to precise legal definitions.

Jaitley said what the government may find defamatory may not be seen in similar light by its critics. He also pointed to the difficulties of controlling technology and asked if it was desirable to do so.

Assuring MPs who sought the annulment of 'rules' which are aimed at regulating internet content, Sibal said, "My assurance to the House is that I will request the MPs to write letters to me objecting to any specific words. I will then call a meeting of the members as well as the industry and all stakeholders. We will have a discussion and whatever consensus emerges, we will implement it."

The move to put rules in place flows from the government's annoyance with what it sees as scurrilous and disrespectful comments about senior Congress leaders. It had suggested pre-screening of content which service providers were reluctant to consider.

The motion for annulling the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011 was, however, defeated by a voice vote. Justifying the rules, the minister said "these are sensitive issues" as most internet companies were registered abroad and not subjected to Indian laws.

TOI was first to report about the new rules that put a lot of the onus on intermediaries like internet service providers, Facebook and Twitter, to manage and monitor content produced by their users. Web activists believe the IT rules are open to arbitrary interpretation and can be misused to silence freedom of speech.

Google, which participated in the public consultative process before the rules were framed, had told TOI, "If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information."

Moving the motion, Rajeeve said, "I am not against any regulation on internet but I am against any control on internet... In control, there is no freedom... These rules attempt to control internet and curtail the freedom of expression."

Complimenting the CPM member, Jaitley said, "I think he (Rajeeve) deserves a compliment for educating us on this rule that Parliament has a supervisory control as far as subordinate legislations are concerned, and, if need be, we can express our vote of disapproval to the subordinate legislations."

MPs felt the government should consider a regime where offensive content can be removed immediately after being posted rather than trying to sieve it out.

Noting that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defy technology and that the days of withholding information have gone, Jaitley urged the minister to "reconsider the language of restraints" to prevent its misuse. He pointed to certain words - harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory - used in the rules, explaining how these could be interpreted/misinterpreted at any stage.

The MPs did note that the internet had a risk of inciting hate speech and frenzy in society and therefore it needed to be restrained but the device could be swift identification of objectionable content.

Pranesh Prakash of Centre for Internet and Society, an organization that has been advocating withdrawal of the rules, said he was sad with the outcome in Rajya Sabha. "The IT minister has promised to hold consultations but the ideal way to do so would have been to scrap the rules and start from scratch," he said.

"It's not only about language in these rules. There is a problem with provisions like the one that empowers intermediaries to remove content without notifying the user who had uploaded the content or giving users a chance to explain themselves."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/mps-oppose-curbs-on-internet

Kapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:45:43Z

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.

This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”

Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to Mint.

"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.

Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."

Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that Rule 3(2) which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from Section 66A of the IT Act, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.

Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.

"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate Apar Gupta in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.

Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."

Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”

To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”

Jaitley in-perspective

Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory” not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content, could be misused, according to Times of India.

IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".

Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to PTI.

He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.

Draconian Censorious Rules

Legally India reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.

The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.

Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.

Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression.

CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of “over-complying” intermediaries who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).

"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:19:38Z

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

This article by Preetika Rana published in the Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

The websites were blocked by private telecom operators following a ruling by Chennai’s High Court in March.

The story began when Chennai-based Copyrights Labs, a firm specializing in copyright infringement, petitioned the High Court to take pre-emptive action against people who might illegally upload two Tamil-language films: "3" and "Dammu."

The court ruled that Internet service providers, or ISPs, could block video-sharing sites where those films were illegally available.

The court named 15 prominent ISPs who were covered by the order.

But the court did not name any particular video-sharing websites to be taken down. And it remains unclear if any of those affected this week even carried the two films in question.

Two major Indian ISPs, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications, blocked content sharing websites including U.S.-based Vimeo and France-based Dailymotion and Pastebin.

They cited the court order as a reason but without proof the sites were carrying the movies. Other ISPs named in the court order did not attempt to block any websites.

The two telecom giants offered little further clarity on why these websites were blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders,” Bharti Airtel said in a statement.

Reliance Communication’s statement said: "Under Section 79 of the IT Act, an ISP has to adhere to any copyright infringement notice and court orders."

Responding to reports of the ban, Harish Ram, chief executive of Copyrights Labs said Thursday: "We have been fighting for this for long and it seems the ISPs are finally responding."

By Friday, the ISPs had restored services for Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin, although some users still reported access problems.

It is still unclear why the March order came into effect only now or why Reliance and Airtel decied to unblock the websites. The telecom firms did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Experts attacked ISPs for clamping down on free speech on the web.

"Why and how did telecom giants target select websites," said Pranesh Prakash, a program manager at Bangalore based-Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit group advocating free speech on the web. He pointed out that the High Court did not spell out the names of websites that should be blocked.

"Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web," he said. "Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?"

Bhupendra Kainthola, a spokesman for the telecom ministry, noted that the "government or the telecom ministry had nothing to do with the high court ruling.” When asked why the ministry did not intervene, Mr. Kainthola responded: “What can we do? If an order has been passed, we have to follow it… that is the law of the land."

The move comes only a few months after the central government issued an official sanction to prosecute internet giants Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that they host "blasphemous" content on their websites. A criminal case against the two companies is ongoing.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban

Taming the Web, are we?

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:01:28Z

Two decades after its advent changed our lives, the world wide web - as we know it - faces a grave threat. Not from governments alone, but also from tech companies seeking to play gatekeepers.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article by Javed Anwer published in the Economic Times on May 13, 2012

The /b/ section at www.4chan.org is so extreme in nature that even web veterans squirm at the thought of going through it. Anyone can post virtually any picture here. Anonymously. It doesn't matter if the pictures are obscene , graphic or gory.

Yet, 4Chan, which was started by a 15-year-old in 2003, is an integral part of the world wide web. The large community at 4Chan mirrors the virtual world - lawless and anarchic in the traditional sense, highly innovative, funny and sometimes disturbing. Barry Newstead, chief global development officer of Wikimedia that manages Wikipedia, puts it succinctly. "The internet has been giving ordinary people the voice and the ability to contribute content and ideas and opinions. Sometimes we use it to create pictures of funny cats and sometimes it's the world's largest encyclopedia ," he says.

Until recently, it seems governments just noticed the funny cats. They left the web to its own devices. At the same time, the egalitarian ethos on which the web was founded - Tim Berners-Lee developed it and gave it away for free - kept realworld barriers, which corporations and people often put around their environment, away from it. In 2012, it looks like the honeymoon is over.

'Civilizing' the Net

Perhaps the problem is that, for all its perceived flaws, the internet has worked wonderfully well."Too well," says Jeff Jarvis, author of 'Public Parts' , a book on internet culture. It has allowed people to create Google, Facebook, Hotmail, WikiLeaks, Wikipedia and thousands of other websites and services that have changed lives. Last year Jarvis was in Paris, participating in e-G 8 called by then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. He heard the Frenchman's plans to"civilize" the web. "Nobody should forget governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies," said Sarkozy.

His sentiments are shared by politicians across the world, including in India. Just three days ago, Congress MP Shantaram Naik, aghast at the "filthy" comments on a website, said in the Rajya Sabha that the internet needs to be "purified" . Different politicians and governments have different reasons. But regulation is growing. In the last few years, governments across the world have proposed or enacted laws (see box) that aim to "civilize" the web.

Why the urgency? Is the internet broken? Jarvis says it is not. "The net is operating no differently today than it was a decade ago. But we see so many efforts to fix it - to regulate it under the cloak of privacy, piracy, decency, security, and even civility," he says. "I believe legacy institutions, including governments, are waking up to the extent of the net's disruptive force... they are trying to control the net and govern the change it causes."

Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, says that in the last two years governments have doubled their efforts to control the web. "During the revolutions in Arab countries last year, protesters mobilized themselves through Twitter and Facebook. Then there are Wikileaks and Anonymous. This has made governments and politicians jittery," says Abraham.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/taming-the-web

Cordon tightens: Rajya Sabha nod to harsh IT rules

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:49:10Z

Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted in this article by Anil Sharma & Aishhwariya Subramanian published in Daily News & Analysis on May 18, 2012.

The draconian intermediaries rules of the Information Technology Act that allows the government to aggressively police the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will continue for some more time as a motion to annul them in the Rajya Sabha was defeated by the treasury benches on Thursday.

The rules that came into effect last year almost became annulled after a determined push from MPs cutting across party lines in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. However, the government barely managed to scrape through but union communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal conceded that there were problems and promised to call for a meeting to address the concerns of the MPs.

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member from Kerala P Rajeeve had moved a statutory motion demanding that these rules be annulled as they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Rajeeve received enthusiastic support from the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, who made a detailed argument against the existing rules. An impressed Jaitley commended Rajeeve for involving Parliament in the process of framing the rules. Jaitley also slammed the government for trying to police the internet but stressed that like other media this could not be controlled. "In fact, if the internet had been there at that time even the Emergency would have been a fiasco," he said.

The members were keen that the motion be put to vote and the numbers in the Rajya Sabha were loaded against the government.

However, responding to Jaitley's suggestion, Sibal assured the house that the concerns of the members would be taken on board. "I request the members to write to me with their specific suggestions. I will take up the matter at a joint meeting with all the stakeholders and arrive at a solution," he said.

This pacified the members and the government ducked a potentially embarrassing situation.

Expressing his dissatisfaction with the minister's reply, Rajeeve stressed that just as there is a provision for withdrawing objectionable content from the internet within 36 hours, there should be scope for restoring it if the original author can justify it.

The debate was keenly followed by free speech activists who have been lobbying for months to get these draconian rules annulled. The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also conducted a major sting operation to prove how absurd these rules are. They sent several fake "take-down notices" to several companies hosting internet sites. The companies went ahead and shut down some blogs and web sites without even bothering to check if the complaints had any merit.

"The trouble with Indian government's proposal to address issues such as network neutrality, privacy and freedom of expression, is top-down. Unlike other countries where internet policies have always been developed with consultation with other stakeholders, here the government imposes its will," said Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS.

Netizens are concerned about India's bad track record when it comes to censorship and a policy for the internet. Delhi-based Anja Kovacks, from the Internet Democracy Project, feels that many of the concerns voiced by Indian government are justified. "Undoubtedly the internet presents a range of new challenges, in India as elsewhere, that need to be addressed. Many of the concerns the Indian government expresses are therefore also completely justified. But the ways in which it seeks to tackle these problems are not appropriate for a democratic nation." Kovacks believes that the current policy will impair the freedom of speech.

Ironically, while the UPA government is busy clamping down on domestic opinion, it is planning to take a far more liberal stand at an upcoming international conference on running the internet in Geneva later this year. "It is an ironical situation where India is not following domestically what it is proposing internationally," said Pranesh Prakash of CIS.

With the government holding on to its draconian rules, citizens using social networks like Twitter and Facebook or writing blogs will now have to worry about big brother watching over their shoulders.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/rajya-sabha-nod-to-harsh-it-rules

Empires: Individuals in Search of Society

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T08:35:46Z

In their 2000 bestseller Empire, Michael Hardt and Toni Negri announced a new international condition no longer built on the imperialist model of the superpowers of old but on the new condition of globalization. This new and emerging networked world held with it the opportunity for politics to bring forward a 21st century of interconnectedness, openness and a shared sense of planetary responsibility.

This article by Marc Lafia was published in Huffington Post on May 18, 2012

What we've discovered since is that the new empire still plays by the games of the old empires: of nation states, of divisiveness, of scarcity, of might, control and fear, even while we have never had such enormous abundance and innovation.

It is this paradox that Empires -- our documentary film and online project, currently raising funds through Kickstarter -- sets out to unravel. The title works on multiple levels. It says that the nationalist empires are back. It also suggests that the empires of law, money, science, speed, nation states, and food are, in fact, complex networks that are inter-related and interdependent.

It is said that you know there is a network when you're excluded from it.

To be included is to have a voice, to participate, to have agency. These things drive the histories of political and philosophical thought. They are not abstract concepts but the very real struggles of networked relations, of powers, peoples, flows of energies and technologies.

How these networks work and how they interact is what Empires sets out to explicate.

We've sat down with an extraordinary group of historians, scientists, network technologists, sociologists, political organizers and artists to construct a conversation that describes the forces that shape our contemporary world. The list includes Manuel Delanda, Saskia Sassen, Florian Cramer, Natalie Jeremijenko, Kazys Varnelis, Geert Lovink, Alex Galloway, Michael Hardt, Anthony Pagden, Cathy Davidson, Greg Lindsay, Nishant Shah, James Delbourgo, Jon Protevi, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, and soon Paul D. Miller and Douglas Rushkoff.

What we've heard is that our managerial and government elites are dysfunctional and that the new order of things is every man for himself, that things find their own order, from the ground up. Our desires are expressed in our purchasing power. Money is how we vote and the market will continually adjust to accommodate the desires we express. We can all be winners using the network effects to scale up to success, a success each of us has agency to produce. There are no larger structures to trump agency. If you can make it you will make it.

In this ethos of the elevation of our uniqueness to the exclusion of our commonalities, we have become blind to any possible collective power. We now, in the West, are a society of individuals in search of society.

With reluctance today to accept such universalisms as global citizenship, rights to a living wage, to mobility, to social ownership of information channels and planetary resources, we are left with a notion that society, like nature, will be chaotic and disruptive, and that through this new 'natural law' of volatility, of self organization, a new politics will emerge and find its shape.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/individuals-in-search-of-society

Centre for Internet and Society

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?

Why this blocking di?

Acting against unknown offenders

Carpet blocking websites

What is happening internationally

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

John Doe order in Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors. (movie Singham)

Internet at Liberty 2012: Promoting Progress and Freedom

Agenda

Registration & Breakfast

Welcome & Introduction

Plenary I

Break

Break-out Discussions

Lunch

Workshop I

Afternoon Break

Plenary II

Reception

Dinner

Plenary III

Workshop II