Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. N. Rodrigues, i/b R.M Partners for the Plaintiffs.
  • Mr. Ashish Bhan, with Udit Mendiratta Padmaja Kaul, with Ms. Shivangi Agarwal, i/b Trilegal for the Defendants.
Judges
  • G.S Patel, J.
Acts
  • Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B and 65-A read with Section 51,
  • Section 51(b)(ii).
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. N. Rodrigues, i/b R.M Partners for the Plaintiffs.
  • Mr. Ashish Bhan, with Udit Mendiratta Padmaja Kaul, with Ms. Shivangi Agarwal, i/b Trilegal for the Defendants.
Judges
  • G.S Patel, J.
Acts
  • Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B and 65-A read with Section 51,
  • Section 51(b)(ii).
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Opinion Summary: G.S. Patel, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The judge noted media reports and confirmation from Mr. Rodrigues for the Plaintiffs that various Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including Tata Communications Limited, had displayed error pages stating that "viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating" particular films is a punishable offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court observed this characterization to be inaccurate and that the error pages appear to conflate penal provisions regarding obscenity with the offences under the Copyright Act.

The opinion identifies the statutory provisions said to govern offences under the Copyright Act as Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B and 65-A read with Section 51, and in particular Section 51(b)(ii). The court directed that the Plaintiffs' counsel (Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Dhond, Senior Advocate) should suggest an appropriately worded draft of the error pages so those drafts can be issued to ISPs. The matter was listed for further hearing on Friday, 26 August 2016 at 3:00 p.m.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether error pages published by ISPs are inaccurately representing the scope of penal offences under the Copyright Act, 1957 by suggesting that "viewing" an illicit copy is itself a punishable offence.
  2. Whether the court should direct the preparation and issuance of a standardized, appropriately worded error message to ISPs (and request the Plaintiffs' counsel to draft such a message) so that affected persons are correctly informed of remedies and the appropriate court to approach.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in concise steps, as reflected in the opinion:

  • The court observed that media reports and the Plaintiffs' confirmation showed ISPs had posted error pages stating that "viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating" films is a punishable offence.
  • The court clarified the correct statutory framework, identifying offences under the Copyright Act as covered by Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B and 65-A read with Section 51, with particular reference to Section 51(b)(ii).
  • The court explained the legal distinction it considered material: the offence under the Copyright Act is not simply "viewing" copyrighted material; rather, offences relate to prejudicial distribution, public exhibition, or letting for sale or hire without appropriate permission.
  • The court concluded that the ISPs' error pages had introduced confusion by conflating penal provisions applicable to obscenity with those under the Copyright Act, thereby misstating the nature of the offences.
  • On that basis, the court determined it was inappropriate to leave ISPs to draft their own error pages and directed the Plaintiffs' counsel (Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Dhond) to propose an appropriately worded draft error message that could be issued to ISPs. The court encouraged a single combined message usable by all ISPs, emphasizing the need to inform persons adversely affected by a blocking order about their remedies and the court to approach for corrective action.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to draft standardized, appropriately worded error-page text to be issued to ISPs, to correct misleading statements that viewing an illicit copy is itself a penal offence under the Copyright Act.

Implications:

  • ISPs that had displayed error pages implying "viewing" is a punishable offence are to be provided with corrected, court-approved wording so that their error pages do not misrepresent the law.
  • The immediate practical effect is to ensure that persons inadvertently affected by blocking orders are informed about available remedies and the court/forum to approach for relief.
  • The opinion does not purport to establish a broader legal precedent beyond this case; it is administrative and corrective in nature, focused on the wording of error messages and ensuring accurate legal information is provided to the public.

Administrative detail: The matter was listed for further hearing on Friday, 26th August 2016 at 3:00 p.m.

Show full summary ...

    Eros International Media Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

    G.S Patel, J.:— I have noticed some media reports that comment on the fact that the error pages being displayed by various ISPs giving an impression that “viewing” an illicit copy of a film is a penal offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. This is inaccurate. The offences under the Copyright Act, 1957 are covered inter alia by Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B and 65-A read with Section 51, and in particular, Section 51(b)(ii). These newsreports show, and this is confirmed by Mr. Rodrigues for the Plaintiffs, that many ISPs, including Tata Communications Limited, have put up error pages saying that “viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating” a particular film is a punishable offence. 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.

    2. It is no longer possible to leave it to these ISPs to construct appropriate error pages. I will request Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiffs, to suggest an appropriately worded draft of the error pages so that these can then be issued to the ISPs. If the Plaintiffs can work out a suitable and effective combined error message applicable or usable by all ISPs, that would be ideal. The basic purpose must be kept in mind, i.e, so that a person who is inadvertently adversely affected by a blocking order is made aware of his remedies and about which Court he or she can approach for corrective or remedial action.

    3. List the matter on Friday, 26th August 2016 at 3.00 p.m

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Eros International Media Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
    (Aug 24, 2016)