Loading blocked URLs is apparently punishable by 3 years jail and Rs. 3 lakh fine in India

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sushubh
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 55
  • Views Views 8,605
mmm. they do not have to go after 10-20% of the population. they just have to go after a small number and get a few people jailed for a few months to set the fear in the mind of the masses.

internationally, content creators give an option of paying a monetary fine instead of jail time to copyright violators. so they can actually start charging a particular fee per file from the violators. this is very feasible and worth the effort.

and then there is the other option. get the courts to instruct ISPs to blacklist repeat offenders. you would lose your internet connection and also barred from getting service from another service provider for a particular time period.

depends upon which route the content creators take, they can go after a small percentage or a large number of people.
 
Yea but even countries like US,Europe don't impose such strict actions,they just send some notices now and then
Do you think India would make such a move...[emoji14]
 
What option does India has if the content owners go after consumers? Government does not decide what to do with complaints. The law does. Courts have issued rather stupid judgements on cases filed by content owners in the past. Blocking access to complete domains because the content owners are too lazy to file complaints against constantly changing individual urls.
 
Let me put it this way,even if the content providers go after the people and they use the law to enforce something,then I think its not going to make any difference or may not be as strict as our fellow neighbours are imposing upon their citizens..
Not to mention the corruption rate in our judicial law system,this is just going to slip away..
 
hollywood production houses with deep pockets can target few individuals to spread the greater message.
 

People are forgetting one thing,the copyright owner may file a complaint but for that he has to first get the name address of the IP from the service provider which will require a court order else the service provider wont provide inf😵r they have to file a complaint and hope that police traces the IP address.And the Police cant take action againist 1 or 2 IPs because they cant justify why they took action againist 1 or 2 people out of 100s who did the same thing.Its not that easy.

And court order to ban you from internet services?LOL.Under what law?People will file writ petitions citing violation of fundamental rights.Not to discount the politicos going after hollywood guys in the name of "nationalism".

Now in India the most serious case of piracy was Udta Punjab leak and even there the police only took action againist the uploader.

No company or copyright holder will go after the consumer as it will mean some seriously bad publicity and lots of legal headache.There is no known case Afaik where the authorities have taken action againist a downloader.
 
@dantool

Lets say 1000 people downloaded a torrent.Complaint was filed againist 10 people.The very first question in court will be why the rest 990 werent prosecuted when they commited the same crime.The very basic rule of equality before law will be invoked.Then the police will have to track down 1000 people around the country go to many different courts plus such a huge number will mean political repurrcussions.
 
don't underestimate the corruption my friend, and indian courts are not above it. this is the country where it takes 18 years to convict

a person and just few months to acquit her.as we are told that a person possessing 800 kg silver and 28 kg gold in a single locker is not corrupt.
 
Just read about tpp to understand how powerful content companies are on this planet. Obama has ruined his legacy pushing tpp despite massive protests from consumer groups.
 
The End of the Dishoom Saga: Better “Blocking” Message and Neutral Ombudsman

“The offence is not in viewing, but in making a prejudicial distribution, a public exhibition or letting for sale or hire without appropriate permission copyright–protected material. These error pages appear to have confused the penal provisions regarding obscenity with penalties under the Copyright Act, 1957.”
Click to expand...

In a later order (dated August 30), Justice Patel asked all ISPs to display a more accurate generic message worded as follows:

“This URL has been blocked under instructions of a competent Government Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Infringing or abetting infringement of copyright-protected content including under this URL is an offence in law. Ss. 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 51, prescribe penalties of a prison term of upto 3 years and a fine of upto Rs.3 lakhs. Any person aggrieved by the blocking of this URL may contact the Nodal Officer at xyz@[isp-domain] for details of the blocking order including the case number, court or authority to be approached for grievance redressals. Emails will be answered within two working days. Only enquiries regarding the blocking will be entertained.”

He made it clear that this message is to be displayed by all ISPs, who are to also designate a nodal officer whom aggrieved persons could contact for details on the blocking.
Click to expand...

Here is the funny part.

The matter has now been listed for 23rd September, when the court will examine if a more complete error message can be displayed by the ISPs. TCL had submitted that the display of a more detailed message is technically infeasible because its inbuilt software does permit display of a file exceeding 32MB. Finding this to be unacceptable, Justice Patel has asked TCL to forward the copy of this order to its overseas suppliers and impress upon them the need to increase the permissible file size.
Click to expand...

In his inimitably witty style, Justice Patel ends his order by noting a hilarious submission by Mr. Tulzapurkar (who represented TCL) that “these blocks and John Doe orders seem to be sought only for forthcoming or anticipated box office flops”. Perhaps there is some truth to this axiom after all! John Does and blocks may help publicise otherwise mediocre movies. And to this extent IP enforcement plays out in stranger ways than we’ve come to expect!
Click to expand...
 

Top