Delhi High court There has been a huge drop on the instant messaging platform Wire not to disclose information on the basis that its servers are located Singapore, In the 51-page order dated August 30, the court said that Indian courts would be fully appropriate in directing Telegram, which conducts its large-scale operations in India, to disclose relevant information relating to violators under Indian law and their To comply with the orders passed by. ,
Telegram argued that it cannot disclose user information because it would violate its privacy policy and the laws of the jurisdiction where its physical servers are located. Rejecting this claim, a bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh, said that even under the provisions of the IT Act, such as under section 79(3)(b), Telegram has a duty to expeditiously remove or remove access to unlawful content, without damaging the evidence in any way. disable it. “Given this position of the law regarding copyright, compliance with local law, i.e. PDPA (personal data protection act), cannot be an excuse for Telegram to justify non-representation of information relating to channels through which infringing material is disseminated, such dissemination would, in the opinion of this Court, be in violation of the law, herein Even under the laws of Singapore,” it said.
“Indian courts are competent”
“Indian courts are competent to decide issues relating to infringement of copyright and the mere fact that Telegram is operating a messaging service in India which chooses not to locate its servers in India, should lead to Indian courts by dealing with copyright disputes or by dividing copyright owners from copyright owners who are taking advantage of their remedies in the Indian courts,” the order reads.
The order further stated, “In the current era of cloud computing and narrowing of national boundaries in data storage, the traditional concepts of regionalism cannot be strictly enforced. Fair remedies in case of copyright and other IP infringement.” The dynamic development of legislation is necessary to ensure that the law.”
Court litigant Neetu Singh and KD Campus Pvt. Ltd. sought permanent injunction to prevent infringement of copyright, damages and other relief in respect of unauthorized dissemination of videos, lectures, books etc. of the plaintiff. Court directs Telegram to disclose details of channels and equipment used, in a sealed cover. To disseminate alleged copyright infringing material with mobile numbers, IP addresses and email ids of such users.
Telegram argued that it cannot disclose user information because it would violate its privacy policy and the laws of the jurisdiction where its physical servers are located. Rejecting this claim, a bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh, said that even under the provisions of the IT Act, such as under section 79(3)(b), Telegram has a duty to expeditiously remove or remove access to unlawful content, without damaging the evidence in any way. disable it. “Given this position of the law regarding copyright, compliance with local law, i.e. PDPA (personal data protection act), cannot be an excuse for Telegram to justify non-representation of information relating to channels through which infringing material is disseminated, such dissemination would, in the opinion of this Court, be in violation of the law, herein Even under the laws of Singapore,” it said.
“Indian courts are competent”
“Indian courts are competent to decide issues relating to infringement of copyright and the mere fact that Telegram is operating a messaging service in India which chooses not to locate its servers in India, should lead to Indian courts by dealing with copyright disputes or by dividing copyright owners from copyright owners who are taking advantage of their remedies in the Indian courts,” the order reads.
The order further stated, “In the current era of cloud computing and narrowing of national boundaries in data storage, the traditional concepts of regionalism cannot be strictly enforced. Fair remedies in case of copyright and other IP infringement.” The dynamic development of legislation is necessary to ensure that the law.”
Court litigant Neetu Singh and KD Campus Pvt. Ltd. sought permanent injunction to prevent infringement of copyright, damages and other relief in respect of unauthorized dissemination of videos, lectures, books etc. of the plaintiff. Court directs Telegram to disclose details of channels and equipment used, in a sealed cover. To disseminate alleged copyright infringing material with mobile numbers, IP addresses and email ids of such users.