Telegram has to adhere to Indian law, disclose details about channels involved in copyright infringement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mobile messaging platform, Telegram has to adhere to Indian law and disclose details like IP addresses, mobile numbers and devices used in operating channels involved in copyright infringement if ordered by Indian courts [Neetu Singh & Anr v Telegram FZ LLC & Ors]..Justice Prathiba M Singh has said that infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under Telegram’s policies merely on the ground that its physical servers are located in Singapore.If such an argument is accepted, in the current world where most dissemination happens through online messaging services and platforms, intellectual property (IP) violations would go completely unchecked, the Court said.“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 cannot divest the Indian Courts from dealing with copyright disputes or divest copyright owners from availing their remedies in Indian Courts," the Court stated..Pertinently, the judge rejected Telegram’s submission that it being merely an intermediary, is not obliged to disclose the details of the originator of the information.Justice Singh underscored merely disabling or taking down channels upon information being given to Telegram is an insufficient remedy as the channels are clearly hydra-headed and are surfacing one after the other because they can be created with just another mobile number or email address.“…the infringement has to be nipped in the bud… The Court cannot perpetually supervise such infringements and, thus, the origin and source of the infringing material has to be traced and such devices or persons involved in the infringement ought to face consequences in accordance with law, including being held liable for damages. That would not be possible if the source of such infringing copies, i.e., the details of the infringing channels are not disclosed.”.It added that compliance with Singapore’s local law -- Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 – also cannot be an excuse for Telegram to justify non-furnishing of the information of channels through which dissemination of infringing content takes place since such dissemination would be illegal even under laws of Singapore..Justice Singh said that even as per Telegram’s own Privacy Policy, fundamental rights would not come to the aid of protection of personal data related to the infringers as it is only the “processing” of data, which can be stopped for protection of fundamental rights.“Disclosure of such data pursuant to a Court order would not fall in the definition of “processing”, which is the only activity that is restricted by the infringing users’ fundamental rights. Telegram’s own privacy policy does not recognize the defence, which has been canvassed before this Court,” the order said..The Court was dealing with a suit by a teacher, Neetu Singh against Telegram and unknown persons.It was argued that she is the author of various books designed to train students aspiring to take various competitive examinations including those conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and National Defence Academy (NDA).The plaintiff argued that videos of her lectures were being uploaded on a daily basis on Telegram and were being accessed by students at discounted rates and PDF files of her books were also being shared..Justice Singh has held that infringement of copyright is indisputably a serious matter as it involves valuable rights of owners of copyright and significance of the protection and enforcement of such rights cannot be diminished, merely due to the growth of technology, which has made infringers easy to hide and conceal their illegal activities.The Court said that the definition of “infringing copy” is broad enough to cover electronic copies which are circulated on Telegram channels.Electronic devices including smart phones, computers, servers and such other devices, which permit copies to be made and to be disseminated, would undoubtedly fall within the said definitions and this is also clear from the fact that Section 14(1)(a) specifically includes reproduction by “electronic means”, the judge said..The Court held that unless and until the operators of channels – who are ex facie infringers of the plaintiffs’ copyright – are disclosed, the plaintiffs would be rendered remediless for recovering damages..The Court further noted that the screenshots produced by the plaintiff and other material placed on record clearly leave no modicum of doubt that the channels, which are running on the Telegram platform, illegally and unauthorizedly, are disseminating and communicating the plaintiffs’ works, that too for monetary gains and infringing the Plaintiffs’ rights.The infringing channels are also so brazen that they use the names of the plaintiffs, such as KD Publications and Neetu Singh in the channel titles without any hesitation, the Court said..It, therefore, directed Telegram to disclose the details of the channels/devices used in disseminating the infringing content, mobile numbers, IP addresses, email addresses and other details used to upload the infringing material within two weeks.The information has to be filed in a sealed cover with the Court which will pass appropriate directions after examining the details..Advocates Rajeshwari H and Swapnil Gaur appeared for the plaintiffs.Senior Advocate Amit Sibal along with advocates Anushka Sharda, Madhav Khosla, Smriti Nair, Vinay Tripathi, Madhav Chitale, Aishwary Vikram and Saksham Dhingra appeared for Telegram..[Read Order]