Indian Court Clarified Responsibility for Copyright Infringement

Back in August, many Indian Internet users found their favorite torrent websites blocked and displaying an ominous message, informing that users could face up to 3 years in prison and a huge fine. In other words, it was said that simply viewing copyrighted content would already be enough to send a user to prison. 
Of course, such a blocking message triggered lots of news articles and brought the scaremongering to a new level. People started believing that downloading a .torrent file or viewing a copyrighted picture could already get them into trouble. Finally, such reports reached the Bombay High Court, which cleared up the confusion, saying that simply accessing a website or viewing copyrighted content is not punishable, but offering it to others is. In other words, viewing is not the offence, while a prejudicial distribution, a public exhibition or letting for sale or hire copyright–protected content without permission is.

In result, the judge also ordered local ISP, which manages the blocking message, to remove the viewing part. Anyway, people distributing copyrighted content via BitTorrent can still end up in jail.

Another concern raised by the judge was the introduction of a neutral ombudsman to resolve blocking disputes, as lots of John Doe orders are granted without a sufficient checking of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Such orders lead to wholesale site blocking without adequate verification of the legitimacy of all content. This is important because the John Doe orders affect all national Internet service providers, which have a subscriber reach of many millions of people.

Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.