Whether trial court should rely on print out of order uploaded on official website of high court?

 Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   has   expressed   an

apprehension that the order of this Court dated 20.12.2017 as well

as   this   order,   would   be   available   on   the   official   website   of   the

Bombay High Court and there is a possibility that since it would not

be a certified copy of the order, the trial Court may insist upon

producing a certified copy. 

2. I am of the view that this apprehension is misplaced since the

print out of the orders of this Court from the official website has

sanctity and the trial Courts are expected to consider the said orders,

if they are cited after taking a print out from the official website.

The said orders are also available before the trial Court from the

official website and there can be a counter verification to find out

whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or

not. In this backdrop, there is no harm if such a print out from the

official website is placed before this Court.

3. It is informed by the learned Advocates that, in several cases

before various trial Courts, the learned Judges insist on production

of   the   certified   copy   of   the   order   and   they   are   not   inclined   to

consider the print out of an order from the official website of the

Bombay High Court, as being a reliable document. As observed in

the foregoing paragraphs, in the event of any doubt in the mind of

the learned Judge, it can be checked from the official website of the

Bombay High Court as to whether such an order has been uploaded

or not? Once the order is uploaded on the official website, it is a

reliable document to be considered by the Court before whom it is

cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2017

SHITAL KRUSHNA DHAKE  V KRUSHNA DAGDU DHAKE 

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: February 02, 2018

Print Page

Whether Youtube can permit uploading of content which violates laws of India?

 Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Tata Sky pointed
out that there was an unacceptable delay in YouTube LLC responding to
Tata Sky's complaint to it about the offending video which virtually sought
to teach the public how to hack Tata Sky's set top boxes (STBs) which were
encrypted, thereby enabling free viewership of TV channels/contents which
were otherwise available only to subscribers. He referred to Rule 3 (2) (d)
and (e) and Rule 3 (4) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries
Guidelines) Rules 2011 ('ITIG Rules') and submitted that YouTube LLC
was obliged to act with promptitude once it was clear that the offending
videos were illegal inasmuch as that Tata Sky's STBs could be hacked into
through simple steps. He referred to the order of the Supreme Court in Sabu
Mathew George v. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine SC 681 in which it
was observed that the intermediaries there "cannot put anything that violates
the laws of this country."
 In the present case neither Tata Sky nor YouTube appear to have been
clear, in the first instance, whether the complaint pertained to a trademark or
a copyright infringement or to some other legal issue. The correspondence
exchanged between them reflects this confusion. However, there could be
complaints regarding some material on the website of YouTube which by
their very nature require it to act immediately without insisting on the
Complainant having to clearly demonstrate that the complaint falls within
one or the other category that YouTube has identified for the purposes of
acting on such complaints.
 The Community Guidelines are meant to guide a person uploading
content on what should not be uploaded. It is understandable that with the
huge volume of uploads it is not practical for YouTube to be viewing each
upload in order to decide whether it is objectionable from the point of view
of its Community Guidelines. However, when a specific instance of possible
violation is drawn to its attention, its review team will have to view the
content and take a call on whether it requires to be taken down. The
response time as well as the response itself are both critical for a
complainant. In the present case Tata Sky's specific complaint was that the
video was "giving step by step instructions on possible hacking" of its STBs
in order to receive to receive High Definition content, free of cost. Tata Sky
pointed out that this was violative of its rights and of broadcasters who own
the HD content broadcast through Tata Sky Platform and was an offence 
under Section 66 of the IT Act. In terms of Rule 3 (1) (e) of the ITIG,
YouTube is obliged not to host content that violates any law for the time
being in force. In determining it to be a complaint regarding 'circumvention
of technological measures' which is defined as an offence under Section 65
A of the Copyright Act, YouTube's review team appears to have got into a
bind about correctly 'categorising' it instead of actually taking a call on
whether the nature of the content required taking down. If it had focused on
the latter aspect the need for Tata Sky to have approached this Court for
relief could have been avoided.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (COMM) 223/2016
TATA SKY LTD.
versus
YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. .
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
DATED: 10.08.2016

Print Page

Is government aware Facebook gets licence to uploaded content? asks Delhi High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday said "it appears" that when anything was uploaded on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter the websites got a licence to the intellectual property rights of the content without paying any royalty and asked the Centre whether it was aware of this.

"It appears there are certain settings by which a user of social media can opt to restrict use of intellectual property rights (IPR). It also appears there can be grant of IPR licence of the content uploaded," a bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva said.

Print Page