The Detail of Channels Violating the Copyright Law were Disclosed by Telegram
The Delhi High Court has mentioned the defence of free speech and the right to privacy shall not be used by any entity, which would include an infringer in order to flee the consequences of illegal actions.
HIGHLIGHTS
- The remark made by the high court by directing messaging platform Telegram
- Reliance was placed by Telegram on the laws of privacy protection
- The right to freedom of speech and right to privacy cannot be used by anyone
The remark was made by the high court by directing the messaging platform Telegram to disclose in a sealed cover the details of channels, which would include the mobile numbers and IP addresses, disseminating certain content in violation of copyright law.
Justice Prathiba M Singh, at the time of dealing with a lawsuit by a training centre and its owner against the illegal sharing of its teaching material on varied channels on the platform under masked identities, had stated that Telegram's reliance on the laws of privacy and right to freedom of speech and expression was utterly inapposite in these facts and circumstances. The judge has mentioned that unless the identity of the operators of the infringing channels was disclosed, the plaintiffs would be rendered remediless in order to recover the damages.
Reliance was placed by Telegram on the laws of privacy protection under the Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that would protect the right to freedom of speech and expression. Well, the same was completely inapposite in these facts and circumstances.
The right to freedom of speech or the right to life as well as the right to privacy shall not be used by anyone or entity. It would let an infringer to be alone, to flee from the of consequences of illegal actions, as it was mentioned by the high court in its order dated August 30.
In response to Telegram's submission of it being an intermediary under the Information Technology (IT) Act and so being obligated to not reveal the details of the originator of the information, the high court opined that mere disabling or taking down of channels was an insufficient remedy as these channels were clearly hydra-headed and were surfacing one after the other owing to the ease with that they would be created.
The provisions of the IT Act and Rules, which was added need to be construed harmoniously with the rights and remedies which were provided to the copyright owners under the Copyright Act, along with this the IT guidelines do not in any manner would obviate the duty of Telegram as a platform in order to take effective steps needed to protect the property rights.
Justice Singh has clarified that as Telegram has opted to locate its server in Singapore, the copyright owners shall not be left completely without any remedy against the particular infringers in law.
Unless the identity of the operators of those channels who were ex-facie infringers of the Plaintiffs' copyright were disclosed, the Plaintiffs were rendered remediless for recovering the damages.
Well, the high court would emphasize that if the protection of copyright was not evolved according to the changing times, it might have a chilling impact on the progressive initiatives taken by educators in sharing their materials and making certain accessibility within the age of cloud computing and decreasing national boundaries in data storage, the conventional concepts of territoriality cannot be strictly applied.
In fact in this case, Telegram-Defendant No.1 was directed to disclose the details of the channels/devices which would be utilized in diffusing the infringing content, mobile numbers, IP addresses, email addresses, etc., which were used to upload the infringing material and would communicate the same.
