As per the Delhi High Court, the right to privacy and the defense of free speech must not be made used by any entity to get rid of the results of illegal actions.
The High Court directed Telegram, a messaging platform, to disclose the details of channels, mobile numbers, and IP addresses in a sealed cover, sharing some content in violation of copyright law.
Justice Pratibha M Singh expressed that the messaging platform’s reliance on the laws of privacy and right to freedom of speech and expression was “completely inapposite in these facts and circumstances.” She said this while handling a lawsuit by a coaching center against the unlawful dissemination of its teaching material on multiple channels on Telegram under “masked identities.”
The judge stated that before the identity of the operators of the infringing channels is disclosed, the plaintiffs would be rendered remediless for recovering damages.
In its order on August 30, the High Court said, “The right to freedom of speech or the right to life including the right to privacy cannot be used by any person or entity, let alone an infringer, in order to escape the consequences of illegal actions.”
Telegram, on the other hand, is submitted as an intermediary under the Information Technology (IT) Act, and is obliged to not share the details of the originator of the information.
In response, the High Court stated that simply taking down channels or disabling them would be an “insufficient remedy”. This is because these channels were “hydra-headed”. Moreover, it is pretty easy to create such platforms in today’s world, making it difficult to handle such situations.
The court stated that the provisions of the IT Act have to be created in accordance with the rights and remedies given to the copyright owners under the Copyright Act. Moreover, even the IT guidelines do not, in any way, obviate the duty of Telegram to take all constructive steps needed to safeguard intellectual property rights.
Additionally, Justice Singh also opined that “merely because Telegram chooses to locate its server in Singapore, the copyright owners cannot be left completely without any remedy against the actual infringers in law.”
The High Court stated that unless and until the operators’ identity who are ex-facie infringers of the plaintiff’s copyright is disclosed, the plaintiff is rendered remediless for recovering damages.
Blocking orders, in this case, would merely be a token relief for the interregnum.
The judge expressed, “The Supreme Court recognizes that if there is a law in existence to justify the disclosure of information and there is a need for the disclosure considering the nature of encroachment of the right then privacy cannot be a ground to justify non-disclosure, so long as the same is not disproportionate.”
The High Court stressed the point that in case the protection of copyright is not modified in accordance with changing times, it will have a chilling effect on initiatives taken by educators in disseminating their study materials and ensuring accessibility in the times of cloud computing.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Telegram-Defendant No.1 is directed to disclose the details of the channels/devices used in disseminating the infringing content, mobile numbers, IP addresses, email addresses, etc., used to upload the infringing material and communicate the same, as per the list of channels filed along with the present application,” “If there are any further list of infringing channels, the same be also submitted to Telegram within one week. The data relating to the infringing channels and the details as to the devices/servers/networks on which they are created, their creators, and operators including any phone numbers, IP addresses, or email addresses, used for this purpose shall be disclosed by Telegram within a period of two weeks thereafter. The said information shall at this stage be filed in a sealed cover with the Court”, the court ordered.
Comments
All Comments (0)
Join the conversation