#dnaEdit | Tackling online piracy: Are tougher measures around the corner?

A message being displayed on blocked torrent sites warning users that “viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of the contents under this URL is punishable” under Indian laws with imprisonment and a fine has raised much alarm among netizens. Users of a few internet service providers have reportedly been getting this message, which warns of three-years imprisonment and a Rs3 lakh fine for violating Sections 63, 63A, 65 and 65A of the Copyright Act. It replaces the earlier innocuous message that merely told the visitor that “your requested URL has been blocked as per the directions received from Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India. Please contact administrator for more information.” The vague phrasing of the new warning message has raised questions about whether even a visit to a torrent site will land users in a legal soup. Though the new warning has sowed confusion, it is also a reflection of the attempt to streamline the response to online piracy.

In recent months, the Bombay high court has been the scene of a vigorous debate on piracy. From casting the net wide and issuing orders (known as John Doe orders against unnamed entities) that blocked entire websites including legitimate content, and not just the specific pirated content, the Bombay high court has shown a refreshing willingness to review its traditional approach. Following the online leaks of Bollywood films like Sultan, Great Grand Masti and Dishoom before they could be released in theatres, filmmakers had rushed to the courts to get injunction orders against torrent sites. When the content producers submitted a big list of websites allegedly distributing the content, Justice GS Patel asked them to come back with specific links within the websites. Subsequently, these firms appointed technology firms who deployed web crawlers to produce a slightly more pruned list of pirating sites. But even this list was reportedly flawed and legitimate e-commerce sites selling DVDs were blocked because they were wrongly included. 

Justice Patel also directed ISPs to rectify the lack of transparency in the earlier block message which left those with grievances against a John Doe order clueless about how to appeal against the block. The court had directed that the specific court order, including the suit number and date, the address of the plaintiff’s advocates, and contact information of the ISP administrator was to be specified in the message. However, the court allowed Tata Communication Limited relief on this count and the current message that has caused much consternation among netizens is the result of this climbdown. It would be wise for the DoT to take note of these legal developments and some of the prescriptions laid by the judge, who also took heed of criticism against John Doe orders in academia and online websites, while evolving the changed legal position. The judge noted that a neutral ombudsman who would act as a regulator to verify whether the links provided by content owners actually contains pirated content, was a workable solution. 

Currently, the Indian and other film industries are losing a considerable amount of revenue because of the release of pirated prints close to the release date of the film. While internet penetration may be low, these pirated prints also make it to the secondary pirated CD/DVD market. While torrent sites have become the medium for this piracy, they also offer internet users a valuable portal to access older movies, e-books and other digital content. Internet users must support the drive against the pirating of new content or risk facing the blanket bans on torrent sites that has been happening frequently in recent times. The new message that warns of imprisonment and fine is a sign that the Indian legal system may not stop at mere blocks and could resort to harsher measures to curb privacy.