Are you a criminal now? Users may get 3 years in jail for viewing torrent site, blocked URL in India
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology/story/are-you-a-criminal-now-users-may-get-3-yr-in-jail-for-viewing-torrent-site-blocked-url-in-india/1/745181.html
reply (0)
Ra Kh
Why the downloaders are harassed. In the case of Great Grand Masti and
other films, it was leaked from the censor board. The viewing is allowed
to few people. In that case, it is very easy to catch hold of the
culprit at censor board. Why action has been not taken on censor board.
The action not taken states that it was deliberately leaked. Why the
sites are not blocked which make available each and every illegal thing
online. Harassing common man has become a practice which is not good.
Government has never tried to uproot the things from the ground itself.Saifur Mohsin
If
this becomes a law, everyone is screwed–Corruption would significantly
increase. You could literally arrest anyone under this and fine them.
One could pay the ISP to add an entry that you visited a torrent site
even if you didn’t and then arrest you using that as a record. Very
convenient.
Noman
agle loksabha election mein “kamal
nahi khilega”. Internet and torrents are mostly used by young
generation, and if you study history of the world, no king or lord was
ever able to hold on to his crown for long after taking freedom from
young generation. Better start practising making tea again bcoz that’s
what “you know who” will be selling after next elections.
RR
The
general people have become the best target for this govt. This country
is becoming a ban country..sense of freedom is getting lost gradually.
Your laws don’t work for rich and influentials, but all come heavily
when it is a simple man!
More then 95% engineering students would be in jailπππππππ
stupid move by the govt by imposing this barbarian law to the people.see you in next election
In India, most of the URLs and websites But
were blocked using DNS-filtering. This means the DNS of the blocked site
was added to a list maintained by the internet service provider and
whenever a user tried connecting to that site, the DNS server of the
internet service provider would block that request. However, this was
easy to bypass as a lot of people started using - or were already using -
third-party DNS services such as those maintained by Google. It is also
ineffective if a site uses HTTPS or in other words encryption to secure
the network between the user’s computer and the site server.
in the last couple of years internet service providers, probably at the
request of government bodies, have invested lot more in bolstering the
mechanism through which they block websites. Indian government bodies
too, instead of relying on internet service providers that are many, has
started bring into play the big companies like Tata Communications and
Airtel that manage a number of internet gateways in India.
Are you a criminal now? Users may get 3 years in jail for viewing torrent site, blocked URL in India
Call This Also Read: It’s over! Torrentz, world’s top torrent search engine, shuts down “This This
it the new Digital India. The Indian government, with the help of
internet service providers, and presumably under directives of court,
has banned thousands of websites and URLs in the last five odd years.
But until now if you somehow visited these “blocked URLs” all was fine.
However, now if you try to visit such URLs and view the information, you
may get three-year jail sentence as well as invite a fine of Rs 3 lakh.
is just for viewing a torrent file, or downloading a file from a host
that may have been banned in India, or even for viewing an image on a
file host like Imagebam. You don’t have to download a torrent file, and
then the actual videos or other files, which might have copyright. Just
accessing information under a blocked URL will land you in jail and
leave your bank account poorer by Rs 3 lakh.
URL has been blocked under the instructions of the Competent Government
Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent
jurisdiction. Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit
copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an offence under
the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63, 63-A,
65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 which prescribe imprisonment for
3 years and also fine of upto Rs. 3,00,000/-. Any person aggrieved by
any such blocking of this URL may contact at
urlblock@tatacommunications.com who will, within 48 hours, provide you
the details of relevant proceedings under which you can approach the
relevant High Court or Authority for redressal of your grievance”
is a change compared to the earlier message that users would encounter
on the blocked URLs in India. The earlier message would read that the
URL has been blocked at the direction of DoT. Of late, however, the
government bodies were not only experimenting in how to implement the
blocks but were also trying to figure what message to show to users.
Recently, the blocked URLs also gave out not reachable error without
specifying any message.
Also Read: It’s over! Torrentz, world’s top torrent search engine, shuts down
If you visit such a URL, you will be shown the following warning.“This
URL has been blocked under the instructions of the Competent Government
Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent
jurisdiction. Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit
copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an offence under
the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63, 63-A,
65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 which prescribe imprisonment for
3 years and also fine of upto Rs. 3,00,000/-. Any person aggrieved by
any such blocking of this URL may contact at
urlblock@tatacommunications.com who will, within 48 hours, provide you
the details of relevant proceedings under which you can approach the
relevant High Court or Authority for redressal of your grievance”
This
is a change compared to the earlier message that users would encounter
on the blocked URLs in India. The earlier message would read that the
URL has been blocked at the direction of DoT. Of late, however, the
government bodies were not only experimenting in how to implement the
blocks but were also trying to figure what message to show to users.
Recently, the blocked URLs also gave out not reachable error without
specifying any message.
The latest warning message clearly implies
that the URL blocking is now happening at the internet gateways - in
this particular case for the example the gateway is seemingly managed by
Tata Communications - and that is more difficult to circumvent. The
connection on which this message was served is from MTNL. But the
message came from Tata Communications. We sent an email to Tata
Communications at the specified address to get more information but it
bounced back (see above).
While the message in itself is
ominous and surely must have been vetted by a government body, it is not
clear how it will be enforced. It doesn’t look possible that the
government will be monitoring the whole world wide web, looking for
people may access or try to access a blocked URL. It is also not clear
how, if someone does land in trouble for accessing a blocked URL in
India, will be prosecuted and what process will be followed.
Lack
of clarity on it as well as no prior information on something like this,
which may make, almost every web user in India a criminal, does
indicate that this is just a message and not any sort of official
government policy, which is going to be enforced. However, at the same,
it is also clear that the mere presence of this message to web users
mean that they may end up in trouble if a government body or cops do
decided to follow through on anything that they believe is an “offence
under the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63,
63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957″.
Blame it on John Doe
The
problem, for now, doesn’t seem to that India is moving to block half of
the internet through a policy the way China does. Instead, the issue is
likely due to the John Doe orders that Indian courts are issuing at the
regular interval at the request of content creators like Bollywood film
makers. The lawyers of film studios often approach courts ahead of a
movie’s release seeking preventive blocks on the URLs they compile in
the list.
Also Read: Torrentz.eu clone is up but 5 reasons why you should not use it
In
reality these lists are poorly compiled and often block is sought on
full websites just on the basis of whims and fancies. However, courts
have regularly issued orders in the favour of film studios in India.
These court orders are issued against John Doe or in other words an
unnamed entity that may indulge in piracy of the film.
Once this
order is issued, the copies of the order along with the list of URLs to
be blocked go to DoT, which them passes an order to internet service
providers to block these sites. The interesting bit here is that once a
URL is blocked it remains blocked, even years after the release of the
film.
Update: The new message that you may have started seeing on
the “blocked” URLs in India is possibly result of a recent court
directive. According to SpicyIP,
Bombay High Court recently asked internet service providers in India to
not just block URLs but also explain to users why the URLs are blocked
and possibly warn them of consequences of illegally accessing copyright
work.
The idea is to tell consumers that downloading a film
is illegal. The idea is to tell them that if they download a film, they
will face trouble. However, it seems that Tata, which in this case
allegedly came up with the wordings of the message, slipped. It came up
with a message that is incredibly poorly worded and the intend to convey
something more than what was implied. The message not only implies that
you may get in trouble if you download a film but may also face the law
if you just manage to access that URL and “view” the content of the
URL.
As of now, it is clear that you may land up in jail —
or at least in trouble — if someone pushes for it. Now, it is possible
whatever charges you face if you visit a blocked may not hold up in the
court but as far as the warning message is concerned, it makes it clear
that visiting any blocked URL in India — and not just a torrent URL —
has potential to land a web user in trouble.
Also Read: The 3 years jail fiasco for torrents shows absurdity of India’s John Doe orders
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Block-URLs-check-e-piracy-with-a-warning-HC-tells-ISPs/articleshow/53818631.cms
City
Block URLs, check e-piracy with a warning, HC tells ISPs
The order is applicable only to links on Indian websites.
Mumbai: Browsing the internet to watch or download pirated copies of
films may lead you to blocked websites, and a stern warning message from
your local internet service provider (ISP). The development follows a
Bombay high court (HC) order under the Copyright Act, where offenders
could attract a three-year prison term and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh for
viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of
copyrighted content.
The HC in July blocked “134 web links and URLs” on a plea made by the
producers of the Varun Dhawan, John Abraham-starrer Dishoom, who sought
protective orders against illegal distribution of their film through
online piracy.
In a bid to strike a balance between the rights of film producers and
legitimate e-commerce sites, Justice Gautam Patel, while ordering the
blocks, also directed ISPs to display a disclaimer that the site was
unavailable due to a court order. Subsequently, on August 12, an ISP,
Tata Communication Ltd (TCL), pleaded that it was “technically
impossible” to implement the directive.
But the court insisted that TCL should display the warning message:
“This URL has been blocked under the instructions of the competent
government authority or in compliance with the orders of a court of
competent jurisdiction. Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating
an illicit copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an
offence under the laws of India, including but not limited to under
Sections 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 which
prescribe imprisonment for 3 years and also fine of up to Rs. 3 lakh.”
Also, “Any person aggrieved by any such blocking of this URL may contact
a nodal officer within 48 hours… for redressal.”
The message is essentially to enable any link or URL wrongly blocked
to initiate steps to have it unblocked. But the message has also
affected Indian netizens who worry that merely visiting a blocked site
could land them in prison. Allaying such fears, senior counsel Venkatesh
Dhond said, “A user who merely reaches a site that has been blocked and
views this error message is not liable to any penalty. But if he
persists with his attempt and accesses the pirated print, then he could
be liable to punishment under the law.”
The HC had recently passed a similar blocking order for 110 websites
when makers of Great Grand Masti said it would be no fun for them if
viewers had access to illegal, pirated, leaked copies online. The
producers then had sought 800 websites and links to be blocked, but the
HC wanted specifics. But Justice Patel expressed concern that such
orders should not affect legitimate businesses in the bargain. He has
been putting producers to stricter test to verify offending links before
listing them as culprits.
In his order in the Dishoom case, Justice Patel said, “Increasingly,
there are many named defendants, all services providers of one stripe or
another… to represent, usually, those unidentified persons
responsible for actual copyright infringementβfor illegally uploading
illicit content for Internet downloads and streaming; making bootleg CDs
and DVDs etc. More and more plaintiffs (usually film producers) name
service providers: blocking access is very like cutting off the oxygen
or blood supply. I have yet to come across a reported case where an
actual John Doe (the uploader of such illegal content) was ever finally traced and prosecuted.”
https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-popular-torrent-sites-of-2016-160102/
Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2016
Posting a list of the worldβs most-visited torrent
sites has been a long-standing tradition at TF, which we continue
today. At the start of 2016 KickassTorrents is pulling in most traffic
followed by The Pirate Bay. A lot of things have happened over the past
year, with some torrent sites disappearing from the scene and others
taking their place.
Most file-sharers are creatures of habit, but when their favorite site disappears they gladly hop over to the next one.
This is also reflected in our annual top 10 torrent sites with the
most traffic, which sees the usual names on top but also features some
dubious newcomers.
One of the major changes came with the hostile takeover
of the popular TV-torrent site EZTV. This prompted the popular
TV-torrent distribution group to shut down last May. Another group took
over the popular brand and continued with their own βunofficialβ EZTV
releases. We therefore marked the site as a newcomer.
Something similar happened to YIFYβs YTS website, when its New Zealand-based admin ran into legal trouble. The official YTS website shut down but it was quickly replaced by the βunofficialβ YTS.ag, which gathered a large user-base over the past two months.
Apparently, most torrent users are happy as long as they can get their fix, no matter what the source is.
KickassTorrents (KAT) remains the most visited torrent site and
continues to grow. The Pirate Bay is listed in second place and made a
strong comeback after nearly two months of downtime spanning the turn of
the year. Since the site has been operating from several domain names
until a few days ago, we chose not to list an Alexa rank.
Finally, itβs worth noting that Rutracker
would have made it into the top five based on the number of visitors.
However, we choose to only include English language content sites.
Below is the full list of the top 10 most-visited torrent sites at
the start of the new year. The list is based on various traffic reports
and we display the Alexa rank for each. In addition, we include last
yearβs ranking for each of the 10 sites.
Most Popular Torrent Sites
1. KickassTorrents
(update July 2016: KAT is down)
KickassTorrents was founded in 2009 and surpassed The Pirate Bay in
traffic last year. Battling various censorship efforts the site has
burned through a few different domain names over the years. Most
recently it switched to a Costa Rican .cr domain after it lost its Somalian .so address.
Alexa Rank: 85 / Last year #1
2. The Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay is one of the main piracy icons. The torrent site
wasnβt online at the beginning of 2015 and had to deal with a staff
revolt. However, it quickly regained millions of users after a
successful comeback operating from a hydra of domain names until last
week.
Alexa Rank: NA / Compete Rank: NA / Last year #4
3. ExtraTorrent
ExtraTorrent continues to gain more traffic and has become one of the
most active torrent communities. The site is also the home of the
popular ETTV and ETRG release groups.
Alexa Rank: 342 / Last year #3
4. Torrentz
(Update August 2016: Torrentz has shut down)
Torrentz has been the leading BitTorrent meta-search engine for many
years. Unlike the other sites featured in the list Torrentz does not
host any torrent files or magnet links, but redirects visitors to other
places on the web. The site uses several domain names with .eu being the
most popular.
Alexa Rank: 351 / Last year #2
5. RARBG
RARBG, which started out as a Bulgarian tracker, was last yearβs
newcomer and continues to rake in more visitors. The site was blocked by
UK ISPs last year, which put it on par with most other sites in the top
10.
Alexa Rank: 1,101 / Last year #7
6. 1337x
1337x has traditionally been a community driven torrent site but
several weeks ago most of the admins and moderators abandoned ship over
security concerns. The coming year it will become clear whether 1337x
can keep its popular status.
Alexa Rank: 1,249 / Last year #9
7. EZTV.ag
TV-torrent distribution group EZTV shut down earlier this year after a
hostile takeover. The site continued to operate under new ownership and
releases its own torrents now. In solidarity with the original owners
several large torrent sites have banned these βnewβ releases from their
sites.
Alexa Rank: 1,373 / Last year #NA
8. TorrentHound
TorrentHound has been around since the last decade but is a newcomer
in the top 10. It has also been on the radar of copyright holders this
year. The torrent site is blocked in several countries and was reported
as a piracy haven to the U.S. government, alongside many other sites in
this list.
Alexa Rank: 2,239 / Last year #NA
9. YTS.ag
YTS.ag has nothing to do with the original YTS or YIFY group, but
aims to take its place. As with the new EZTV, several large torrent
sites are not allowing the group to use the YIFY or YTS brands on their
sites.
Alexa Rank: 740 / Compete Rank: 4,271 / Last year #NA
10. TorrentDownloads
TorrentDownloads has been around for several years. The torrent site
regained a spot in the top 10 this year after it was featured for the
last time in 2011. Itβs a no-nonsense index that provides torrents to
millions of users each month.
List of Websites
List of websites monitored by Markscan on behalf of MSM are[12]
| Alexa Rank | Website | Domain | URL | Category | Primary language |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37,771 | ummah.com | ummah.com | worldfree4u.info | Internet forum | English |
| 312,546 | Multiupload.nl | multiupload.nl | multiupload.nl | File Storage | English |
| 15,747 | Crocko.com | crocko.com | crocko.com | File Storage | English |
| 2,719 | 1Fichier | 1fichier.com | 1fichier.com | File Storage | English |
| 8,840 | !EmbedUpload.com | embedupload.com | embedupload.com | Video | English |
| 10,706 | Playwire | playwire.com | cdn.playwire.com | Video | English |
| 107,581 | Uploadsat | uploadsat.com | uploadsat.com | File Storage | English |
| 2,481 | Uploadsat | uploadable.ch | uploadable.ch | File Storage | English |
| 432 | desitorrent.com|extratorrent.cc | extratorrent.cc | extratorrent.cc | Torrent Sharing | English |
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3002697/Bombay-HC-Dishoom-Blocking-Order.txt
HIGH COURT,
.-. k?
g!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY y:
- ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION A.
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2147 or 2016\".-
IN -
SUIT (L) NO. 755 OF 2016
Eros International Media Limited 8: Another _Plajntiffs
V??rsus I
Bharat Sanchar igam Limited 8: Others Defendants
Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Mr. Shailesh Mandon
Mr. N. Partners, for the Plainztz'?i
CORAM: G.S. PATEL,
. . DATED: 26th July. 2016
71.. I Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.
2-. Mr. Dhond renews his application for an ex parte ad-interim
reliefs in this John Doe action; This follows the previous order dated
22nd July 2016, in which, on the information then available, I did
not grant immediate relief but left it open to the Plainti?s to apply
again.
3. Given the nature of these applications and their frequency, it
is perhaps time to consider what it is we really mean when we say
Page 1 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on Downloaded on - 27/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer-Clause :Authenticated copy is not a Certified Copy?
HIGH COURT,
this is a ?hybrid? action. The hybridity is not only because a ?Jahn A
Dae? (or ?Ashok Kumar?) action combines rinciples of
representative action with an invocation of inhere powers
Court to gain orders against a person or perso
hybridity is actually now a combination of -- ever-ali- distinct
jurisprudential innovations: a form of an Anton Pillarorder of
compelled compliance; an asset-blocking variant Mama
injunctions; the provisions of Order 1, Rule of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1903 parts of. Order 38 and 39 of the CPC
and, of course, CPC Section 151. a -
4. The John Doe form. Increasingly,
there are many defendants, all services providers of one
stripe or another. smallelutch of Ashok Kumars at the end of
the cause title aresupposed to represent, usually, those unidenti?ed
persons responsible for actual copyright infringement for illegally
uploading illicit \"content for Internet downloads streaming;
\"making bootleg CDs and DVDs, etc. More and more plaintiffs name
. andtarget? service providers: blocking access is very like cutting off
the oxygen or blood supply. I have yet to come acTss a reported
case where an actual John Doe was ever ?na traced and
prosecuted. I
these orders. Indeed, we may have been altogether lax and too
unmindful of the impact such orders possibly
legitimate business. The trouble stems, I belie e, from the
constantly shape-shifting nature of Internet and dig1 a] technology,
ave even on
5. Unfortunately, the trend of judicial orders as not, in my
view, consistently instituted suf?cient safeguards hile granting
Page 2 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 Downloaded on - M72016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer?Clause :Authenticated copy is not a rti?ed Copy?
'24
HIGH COURT, - 6513
the swi?ness of which is no match for the glacial pa ?e of legislative
and jurisprudential change; and perhaps, too, from a real fear
the Internet represents something both unknown
Since we see ourselves as incapable or at least ill-eq ppedto
narrowly tailored de?nitions of those we propos 7 rte to
judicially evolved restraints, the chosen course: o?en'been to
broaden the parameters on the footing that, of \"suf?ciently
broadened, the restraint net will almost certa 1y stop any
miscreants who might otherwise slip?tln'ongh. Wh we do this,
however, we sometimes impinge rights of ocents, those
who are blameless and free wrongdoing. We a rd primacy
perhaps even supremely Whohold statuto and common
law rights in our protection laws, and, by
necessary implication, we-hold that all other rights subordinated
to these. Thi?h?s o?en resulted in an one-sided, and even lopsided,
frame for these orders.
6. There ,is' a very real contest between com ting rights or
competing equities in cases such as these, and we ould be astute
enough, I now think, to acknoWledge that som balancing is
I essential. A Court is bound to recognize, andindeed it has no choice
in the matter, that parties such as the present Plaintiffs do have
valuable statutory rights in their ?lms. This copyri is an asset. It
represents a tangible monetary value, not only in te of what can
be gained by transacting with it, but perhaps, and mo importantly,
by what is lost when the value of that copyright is diminished on
account of piracy and illicit copying. Sometimes, it even boils down
to a simple arithmetical equation: if those who would ordinarily buy
tickets to see a ?lm in a theatre have already seen an illegal copy on
Page 3 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 Downloaded on - 27/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer?Clause :Authenticated copy is not a Certi?ed Copy?
HIGH COURT,
their cell phones or computers, the revenue loss to the holder of
coPYI?ight is direct, immediate and obvious.
7. This does not, however, mean that in the protection 1pr
- copyright one should make orders that are in
18:60. Wide 7 that
there is no concern about innocents who adversely
affected. There is no concept of ?acceptable collateralidamage? in
law. It simply will not do to obtain an order which is in the nature of
a carpet-bombing or scatter-shot salvo, where several persons are
struck at the same time, many but?ls'ome (perhaps very few)
perfectly innocent. I believeELak more granul
approach is
necessary, one that interests of the Plaintiff
while safeguarding fill-legitimate rights, prot ted by the
Constitution terins of business, free speech an all the other
essential freedoms of individuals.
7 providers, cable operators and the like.
7 8. I have noted that the ?lm in questi Dichoom is
Scheduled- for release on 29th July 2016, a few
. Hence the urgency. Defendants Nos. 1 to 42 are intemet service
ys frOm now.
9. Mr. Dhond has now placed before me an Additional Affidavit
in Support dated 26th July 2016 of Mr. Aamod Gupte, the Group
General Counsel of the 1st Plaintiff and the authorized signatory of
the 2nd Plaintiff. I propose now to consider this Affidavit in some
detail.
Page 4 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2016
?DisclaimerClause :Authenticated copy is not a Ce
Downloadedon 4271072016 13:46:31
rtified Copy?
HIGH COURT,
10. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Affidavit, Mr. Gupte sets out A
that following my previous order of 22nd July 201 the Plaintiffs-SQ:
instructed Aiplex Software Private Limited (?Aiple to
a detailed veri?cation of a list of URLs or weblinks
indicated the potential availability of illegal or r_ copiesofj?the
Plaintiffs? ?hn Ushoom. Pausing here, I note that. ere this
case, no source of information that the ?lm has alrea leaked;
the anxiety is that the threat of this leak grow more 'nent as the
theatrical release date approaches. This-is irnport t, for it marks
the present action clearly as a quid action, 0 instituted in
anticipation of possible It 7
11. The Aiplex to pro de supporting
documents and __e?Vidence?infsupport of each such or weblink.
Aiplex sent\" .on' alist of 134 web links. A categoric 1 statement is
made in paragraph? in these terms: I I I
'?As stated above, these links are currently ormant.
They Will, however, spring to life and become ctive as
as an offending cepy ,of the film ecomes
available on the internet.?
i 12. The Affidavit goes on to say that Aiplex fo arded to the
Plaintiffs detailed supporting documents and 'dence. This
a evidence takes the form of screenshots evidencing speci?c page
contents of each URL. In other words, Aiplex troubled itself to visit
each link and then obtained a screenshot of the resultant webpage.
This is used by the Plaintiff's to establish and demonstrate that these
URLs and web links do in fact claim to offer illicit copies of the ?lm
(not just trailers and promos). By its letter of 25th July 2016, a copy
Page 5 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/072016 Downloaded on - 27/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer?CIause :Authenticated copy is not a Certified Copy?
HIGH COURT,
of which is at Exhibit to this Ai?davit, - plex in writing,
con?rmed that it had veri?ed every single one of thse URLs. 7? .
13. In paragraph 5, Mr. Gupte then says that he . the.
Advocates further personally cross-checked all I linksand
URLs mentioned at Exhibit with the supporting documents,
and he con?rms that they found each of these web? URLs do
indeed purport to potentially offer ?'ee downloa or streaming of
illegal copies of the ?lm. This is veri?ed-and. con?rmed on Af?davit.
14. Thus, what I have a three-step veri?cation.
First, a veri?cation ia?essm?nt by Aiplex. This is
accompanied by There is then a second level
of veri?cation that said ?to..have been done by the deponent of the
Af?davit the Plaintiffs? Advocates; and ?nally all of this
material is placed. on and is now On path. I think this is
suf?Cient material as which to base an order.
The rest of the Af?davit deals with past instances. In
paragraph 6 there is an expression of a serious a prehension that
. these links will be activated very quickly. Paragrap 10 also sets out
the potential loss to the Plaintiffs. These elements are also essential
in an action of this type.
16. I turn now to Exhibit which is, ?rst, a o-page listing of
these 134 links. This is at pages 8 and 9 of the A?i vit. Thereafter,
from page 10 to page 143 are screenshots of th respective web
pages. I do not claim myself to have examined all 1 4 of these links. I
Page 6 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 Downloaded oi! - 27/07/2016 13:45:31
?Disclaimer. Clause :Authenticated copy is not a Certified Copy?
651320
HIGH COURT, -
do not think it would be reasonable to expept Courts with
overcrowded dockets to do this. What we need, perhaps,
neutral, third'PartY agency to Verify these Claims; but till
entity comes into being, we will have to make my as best. We:
What I have done, however, is to quickly scan list; for any
discrepancies. I notice none. I see that this list sho to?t'oday is
very different from the list that was shown to me 6? 2016.
This is a much more carefully curated list. I do ?nd in this any
reference to links to trailers of the shopping portals. The
supporting documents from and these too I have
quickly scanned, going geach?a page, do upport what the
Plaintiffs state. All of down oads of the ?full
movie?. For instancefat' caption is ?Dishoom (2016) full
movie download? we ?nd details pf the ?lm quality,
?le size and. ?le. format. Much the same mat1 rial is. on all the
subsequent pages,\" have not in fact been able to ?nd a single
screenshot in that points to either a trailer or any
:displayof these contents. There is no material on these
pages that is kosher: the entire page (and we are riot here speaking of
an entire site) is speci?c to a download of the movie in question.
- .
.
17. Mr. Dhond also points out, and I think he? is perfectly correct
in this, that the Plaintiffs have not given any contract to any party for
the exploitation of right in this ?lm. This be viewed as an
important contractual safeguard against online piracy, for what it is
worth.
18. I am satis?ed that there is a case made out for the grant of
some measured relief in terms of the list now shown to me.
Page 7 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/97/2016 Downloaded on - 27/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer Clause Authenticated copy ?3 ?0t 3 Certi?ed copy?
and deleted as 'y
HIGH COURT,
19. The Plaintiffs are permitted to replace or substitute the list at 2?
. suf?cient veri?cation) with the list of 1-34 veri?ed and t?
URLs and web links annexed as Exhibit
Af?davit.
20. Mr. Dhond also tenders a draft amendment.th prayer clause
to the Notice of Motion and prayer clause (va) in the Plaint.
This is allowed. The draft amendment \"is taken on record and
marked for identi?cation. are to be carried
by the end of the day netted of reveri?cation of the
Plaint.
?Kai?-
21. There an in terms of amended prayer a
which reads: a; follows (I have I added the ortions that are
ck through):
7 'Grant an order. of temporaiiy iniunction
7 directing the Defendants to tai<e measures
to block access to. the 134 URLs/weblinks
at the amended Exhibit the Plaint
2-: I
contain or purportito co_ntain,lan infringing
or illicit copy of the said Filrn ?Dhishoom?
or part thereof, upon the Plaintiffs or their
authorised representatives, providing
details of such infringing UR slweblinks to
the Defendants or uponl the Senior
Inspector of the Cyber Police Station,
Bandra Kurla Complex notifying the
Defendants about the same;\"
-
Page 8 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2016, Downloaded on - 27/07/2016 13:46:31
7 Exhibit to the plaint (the much longer, original list,
to the
?Disclaimer? Clause Authenticated copy is not a Certi?ed Copy?
651318
HIGH COURT, -
22. It is once again clari?ed that the reference to Exhibit is a I
reference to exhibit as amended, the substituted exhibit
I now includes the 134 veri?ed weblinks and URLs. 7'
23. This order will operate against Defendants 1 to; With
immediate effect. I i a
24. In addition, the previous order as regards Section 52(1)(c) of
the Copyright Act, 1957 will also apply.~j In other words, upon the
Plaintiffs drawing the attention many?of the Defendants Nosveri?ed in, at a minimum,
the same manner as, earlier, and which is
shown to be a link toiagi?age?containing links for illicit downloads,
display or the ?lm in question, the$e Defendants will
?rst restrict to that URL 0r web link (not to an entire website)
as by Seetion for the 21-day] period mentioned
,in,_that section. For {any continuance ofthe page-speci?c URL-block,
'Plainti?'s must apply to Court, and liberty islexpressly reserved
to them addition, when the'Plainti?is Defendants Nos. 1
to 42 to block access to the'13-4 URI-.iisimxentioned in Exhibit to
the Plaint as amended (or future speci?c, veri?ed URLs as
mentioned earlier), the Defendants will also display certain special
default error pages when any attempt is made to access those
blocked links. Those error pages are to contain suitably worded text
prepared by the Plaintiffs? attorney and approved by Mr. Dhond:
Page 9 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploadedon-zmmora commadedon -27/07/201613:46:31
?Disclaimer Clause Authenticated copy is ?Oi a certi?ed Copy\"
HIGH COURT, u:
Referencing the relevant provisions of the Copyright
7 Act, 1957 that prescribe penalties for Offences,
copyright violations (mentioning speci?c
prison term and amounts); and .
.
Referencing this order by its date, theisuit number and
the details of the present Suit. It is'ant?jnecessary to
reproduce the entire order. It is suf?cient to state that
the block of that is authorised by this
order. The suit correctly mentioned.
A statementtlia?t?ianykperson? aggriequ not merely
to 42) by any such block may
this Court with at least 48 hours?
to the Advocates fer the ,Plaintiffs (whose
address is for a variation or
modi?cation of this order {in relation to that particular
URLorweblink. .
-I do not suggest that this information shoul be exhaustive or
copious (as in setting out the. 'aentire af?davit). It is
suf?cient to set out the esSe'ntials.
26. The second and third parts of the ?error page? notice are
particularly important to ensure that even if some innocent person is
inadvertently affected by a blocking action, he has the remedy of
being immediately approaching the Court for relief. Returning to the
original frame of the suit, and the array of parties, such an affected
Page 10 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on .27/07/2016 Download?d on 47/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer Clause Authenticated copy is not a Certi?ed Copy?
4.
HIGH COURT, a
party may well be described as the non-John Doe John Doe, a
. person though unknown at the time of ?ling the suit, yet not.
person intended to be subjected to a restraint, but one found later? to
be affected by it. I believe this provision is important and
safeguard. Without it, innocent third parties areileft without a
remedy except perhaps to venture an intervention application, never
an easy thing in a civil suit. At the broadest I
advocate is this: if you seek a broad~based?order, ?inging a restraint
net wide, then justice and equity demand that-you make provision to
save those you never intended to harm, ?It. to my mind and in my
judgment, unthinkable that a?ij?udicial Order should so operate as to
cover a multitude of yet leave the innocent or
blameless among themijyifhoiitaremedy. . a
27. In adaitieh, 1 clarify that the Plaintiffs-will still he at liberty to
apply (ehdhot tooveaiteetly oodet section mum of the
Aet, for a block against the entirety of a particular
lwebsite if they.\"are able to demonstrate 'on the most Comprehensive
audit orreview reasonably possible that they have found the entirety
of I that website to contain only illicit and infringing material (not
necessarily their Own) no legitimate content whatsoever. In
such cases, the Court may considerjan order blocking} an entire site.
Any such application would necessarily needs suf?cient supporting
documents and evidence. There is no prohibition against ordering
such a block, but the standard of care required is proportionately
higher.
28. The present injunction will need to be time-limited and will
continue till 3rd October 2016.
Page 11 of 12
26th July 2016
Uploaded on - 27/07/2015 Downloaded on - 23/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer. Clause :Authenticated copy is not a. Certi?ed Copy?
HIGH
29. Liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply should the need arise.
. TRUE COPY
-7 Section Of?cer
'7 -. High QounL Appellate Side
Page 12 of 12
26th July 2016
3: Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 Downloaded on 7 27/07/2016 13:46:31
?Disclaimer-Clause :Authenticated copy is not a Certi?ed Copy?https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3002697/Bombay-HC-Dishoom-Blocking-Order.pdf
torrent = a sudden large or too large amount, especially one that seems to be uncontrolled: ΰ€ͺΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ€ΰ€ΰ€‘ ΰ€§ΰ€Ύΰ€°ΰ€Ύ -ΰ€¬ΰ₯ΰ€ΰ€Ύΰ€° -ΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€ΰ€Ό ΰ€§ΰ€Ύΰ€°ΰ€Ύ- a strong and fast-moving stream of water or other liquid.outburst, stream, volley, outpouring, hail, onslaught, avalanche, flow, barrage, battery, tide, spate, effusion, inundation
What is the meaning of ‘torrent’ (related to internet downloads) ?
Best Answer: A .torrent file is a small file that is stored on servers called Bittorrent trackers. When a user downloads a torrent file, he/she opens it in a Bittorrent client which reads the file. The file contains the address of the tracker, which the client reports to, announcing that it is present and requesting peers. This is the first `scrape`. The tracker returns the IP addresses of some other users who are downloading the same file. Some of these peers may have 100 percent of the file. If this is the case, they are referred to as `seeds` or `seeders`. Peers who have less than 100 percent of the file are referred to as `leeches` or `leechers`. The client connects to these peers and begins requesting `pieces` of the file. Files that are transmitted via Bittorrent are broken into pieces during the creation of the torrent. The size of each piece is determined by the creator of the torrent. Each piece has a unique md5 hash. Therefore, if a user downloads 99% of a file, and a piece fails the hash check, they do not have to redownload the entire file; they only have to redownload the piece that failed the hash check. This ensures that the file is an exact duplicate of the original.
Bittorrent is one of the more popular methods of file transfer these days since it is so inexpensive. The only server that is needed is the server that runs the tracker software. Trackers use web interfaces to allow users to download the torrent files. All other data transfer is done by the peers themselves. There is no centralised server as there are in many other filesharing protocols.
Some recommended Bittorrent clients for Windows are Halite or uTorrent.
A good Linux client is Ktorrent.Some good Linux or OS X clients are libtorrent and TransmissionAzureus is a very feature-rich Java client
It is an efficient way of transferring large files from peer to peer.This explanation is in layman’s terms, so don’t nit pick.
A single person begins with a file (the seeder). He places the torrent up for download. Another person downloads the torrent, and opens it with a torrent client (the leecher). Once the leecher fully downloads the file, he too becomes a seeder. If a new leecher comes along, each seeder only has to transfer 50% of the file, as the other seeder will cover the other half. The higher the ratio of seeders to leechers the faster the download. All of this is done automatically by the bittorent client. ( I recommend uTorrent)
Wikipedia has a good diagram to illustrate what really goes on.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
A torrent can have two meanings. The first meaning is when you download/share a file via the bittorrent protocol, that file is called a torrent.
A torrent is also a small file that when used with a bittorrent client, tells the client how to find the and download the software it corresponds to.
Torrent means free sites for Movies,Music,Software,etc;It is P2P system and some way ill-legal.You can download above all from Torrent site,for that you must have software as like Bit-Torrent,uTorrent.These are available at www.download.com and many free software sites.