 This order on 28 Feb 2014 directly contradicts an earlier order by Madras High Court on 15 Apr 2012 against banning entire website instead of specific URLs.
(meta data) TITLE: No More John Doe Orders? Indian ISPs Get Court Order For Specificity In URL Blocks - MediaNama (meta data) PUBLISHER: http://www.facebook.com/medianama Home » Ashok Kumar Order, Films, john doe order, Legal, Madras High Court, News, Telecom Operators # No More John Doe Orders? Indian ISPs Get Court Order For Specificity In URL Blocks Nikhil Pahwa By Nikhil Pahwa ( @nixxin , +NikhilPahwa , nikhil@medianama.com ) June 20, 2012 Share This: Share via Email The Madras High Court has granted some relief to Internet users in India, courtesy an appeal filed by a consortium of Internet Service Providers asking for specificity in complaints of infringing content, instead of a John Doe/Ashok Kumar order. The order, issued on the 15th of June 2012, of which MediaNama has a copy, states: "The order of interim injunction dated 25/04/2012 is hereby clarified that the interim injunction 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." Readers might have noticed that, over the weekend, Indian ISPs enabled access to sites like Vimeo, The Pirate Bay, among others. These sites had been previously blocked because of a John Doe order granted to Copyright Labs (for the movie Dhammu). The John Doe order, against a nameless entity, which allowed studios to tell ISPs to block user access to many video sharing and torrent websites pre-emptively, to prevent uploading of content. The clarification from the Madras High Court came following a representation to the court by a consortium of ISPs, pointing out the John Doe order has also led to legitimate content being disabled, and they can still block access to infringing content when informed by the studios. Copyright Labs had also given to the ISPs, a list of several URLs with pirated content. On condition of anonymity, an ISP representative told MediaNama that they felt that ISPs were being wrongfully vilified on the Internet, when it was never really their fault, and that they were only complying with the court orders. They felt that it was adversely going to impact their business if video streaming is disabled for users. Starting with the movie Singham, for which Reliance Entertainment had taken a John Doe order last year, movie studios have been consistently getting John Doe orders blocking access to file sharing, video sharing and torrenting websites. What This Means Readers might recall that a John Doe order has recently been granted to Viacom18 for the film the Gangs Of Wasseypur. Following the Madras High Court order, which sets a precedent in terms of demands of specificity, ISPs may not comply with requests for blocking of entire websites, and use the Madras High Court order to get the courts to instead ask studios to be specific. Just like the John Doe orders issued in the past set a precedent for more, this order might just set a welcome precedent for specificity. Note that this is the way it should have been, in any case: under the IT Rules (2011), all studios had to do was ask ISPs to block access to specific URLs. It doesn't mean that John Doe orders will not be granted, but it does suggest that they will be contested. I'm quite surprised that the ISPs went and contested these orders: one notion was that with a reduction in video-watching online, their costs would have reduced. However, revenues for mobile operators might also have been impacted, since many of their users choose pay-as-you-go plans, and video streaming would contribute significant revenues. Additional Reading Our Take Jun 6th 2012: Anonymous India's Takedowns Could Be Counterproductive May 27th 2012: John Doe Orders: What Needs To Be Done May 19th 2012: Need Specificity In Court Orders On Online Copyright Violation In India, Transparency From ISPs John Doe Orders May 17th, 2012: ISP Wise List Of Blocked Sites May 17th 2012: Airtel Blocks Vimeo, DailyMotion & All Major Torrent Sites In India Following John Doe Order May 11th 2012: DailyMotion Blocked In India On RCOM; Airtel & RCOM Block Bookmarking Site Xmarks May 4th 2012: Reliance Communications Blocks The Pirate Bay & Vimeo Mar 30th 2012: Producers Of Tamil Film '3′ Get Court Order Making ISPs Responsible For Checking Piracy Aug 30th 2011: Reliance Entertainment Gets Order To Block Piracy Of "Bodyguard" On File Sharing Sites Jul 21st 2011: Files Sharing Sites Blocked In India Because Reliance BIG Pictures Got A Court Order Anonymous India Action Jun 14th 2012: Anonymous India To File RTIs Seeking Information Against Internet Censorship Jun 11th 2012: Anonymous India's June 9th Protests In 18 Cities: What Happened Where May 30th 2012: Anonymous Defaces More Indian Websites May 26th 2012: Anonymous Hacks Into Reliance Servers; Redirects Users To Warning Page May 25th 2012: Anonymous India Releases Reliance's Site Block List; Calls For On-Ground Protest On June 9th 2012 ## Daily Newsletter ## Headlines YouTube disables 210 channels for videos undermining Hong Kong Protests Blackout is collective punishment against people of J&K: UN human rights experts call on India to end communications shutdown ShareChat removes TikTok videos after receiving notices: report Zomato CEO takes dig at NRAI chief, says logout campaign to 'sabotage aggregators' Amazon to acquire 49% equity stake in Future Coupons ## Views Five fundamental flaws in India's intermediary liability amendments - Nikhil SudDr Kamakoti's solution for WhatsApp traceability without breaking encryption is erroneous and not feasibleUber mulls launching bus service in India: ReportThe Future of Copyright Policy in India#PolicyNext: How to improve India's policy-making processes Read All ## Related Posts ## Madras HC says that Aadhaar-Social Media linkage is not possible August 22, 2019 ## Vodafone Idea and Airtel lost 15.6M active connections in June 2019, 983.7M active mobile connections in India: TRAI August 20, 2019 ## Why Aadhaar-social media linkage petitioner Janani Krishnamurthy wants traceability August 12, 2019 ## Exclusive: WhatsApp's response to Dr Kamakoti's recommendation for traceability in WhatsApp August 21, 2019 ## Mobile Number Portability increased 3.8% in June 2019: TRAI August 20, 2019 ## IIT Madras's Kamakoti tells MediaNama how WhatsApp traceability is possible without undermining end-to-end encryption August 8, 2019 ## SC on Facebook transfer petition: Madras HC hearing to go on, next hearing on September 13 August 21, 2019 ## 6 Charts on Airtel from Q1-FY20: 11,930 MB data usage per data customer per month August 14, 2019 ## Tell us if traceability is technically possible: Madras HC to WhatsApp and IIT Madras professor August 1, 2019 Privacy and Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. AcceptNo Revoke cookies
train22778
Internet censorship in India
Instances of censorship.:2014.:Whistle blower Savukku's site blocked by Judge C T Selvam.
In an interim order on the petition filed by news reader Mahalaxmi, Justice Cyril Selvam blocked the entire website www.savukku.net.