The common man’s access to the internet has revolutionized everyone’s lives. The internet’s platform has made human interaction easier than it has ever been. Nowadays, online streaming is increasingly popular. On the internet, there are different platforms for online streaming, often known as video-on-demand streaming services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Hotstar, among others. These platforms provide online streaming services that allow users to watch a variety of content, including TV shows, web series, sitcoms, films, documentaries, and more. These live streams differ from traditional TV channels or movie theatres in that they allow viewers to pick what, where, and when they watch content. As a result, without seeing a single advertisement, one can enjoy unlimited viewing of the content offered on these online video sites.
These platforms are subscription-based, and users can use the tools provided by these platforms to help them decide what they want to watch and what they don’t. These platforms provide video content, as well as rating guides and episode synopses. However, there have recently been several conversations indicating that there is a need for regulations to oversee two aspects of internet streaming platforms. The first is to safeguard the content from piracy and duplication, and the second is to regulate the content that is offered on these online streaming platforms.
Online Streaming of Web Series and Anti-Piracy Issues
In all of the technological improvements that have occurred over the last two decades, the internet and other digital forms of networking and publication have made the greatest leap. With approximately 566 million internet members, India has surpassed China as the world’s second-largest online market. Of these, 251 million live in rural India. However, piracy has developed tremendously in tandem with the increased use of new media and the development of related industries, resulting in the dilution of the results of copyright owners’ earnings.
Piracy is the illegal copying, distribution, and sale of copyrighted material without the permission of the rightful owners. The ongoing desire of online viewers to obtain free access to premium OTT material in the form of movies and web series has resulted in a growth in online video piracy. The tremendous demand for such free content has resulted in a myriad of ways for online viewers to obtain a pirated version of the content that was originally owned by OTT media firms. To give an example, Telegram, a cloud-based instant messaging and voice-over IP service located in Dubai is a popular site for users to distribute pirated content like movies and web series that are generally available on OTT platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hotstar, and others. Peer-to-peer piracy has risen as a result, allowing users to distribute and share digital media obtained illegally. This rise is harmful to such platforms and content providers because it eliminates a significant portion of their potential earnings.
Because of the omnipresence of digital media and the associated exponential number of pirates, copyright owners are unable to identify those who are infringing on their rights, making digital piracy very risky and difficult to combat.
The Indian government (GOI) and succeeding authorities have been aware of this technical threat for some time, and several institutional and regulatory measures have been made to address it. Improvements in Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) regulation, management, and enforcement have resulted from constant and relentless developments, as well as sweeping and far-sighted regulatory and institutional reforms.
Copyright Laws and Case Laws
The Copyright Act of 1957 and the Information Technology Act of 2000 both include safeguards to combat the threat of piracy. Section 14 of the Copyright Act defines copyright and outlines the many exclusive rights that a copyright owner has, including the ability to create copies, reproduce the work, and store it. Any deliberate storing of work, as well as its unauthorized reproduction and dissemination, is considered copyright infringement, according to Section 51 of the Act, and is punishable both civilly and criminally. Sections 65A and 65B were added to combat copyright infringement in the digital world by ensuring the preservation of technological measures as well as rights management information.
According to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3 sub-rule 4 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, it is an intermediary’s responsibility to act with due diligence while performing its duties and ensure that it does not host or publish any information that infringes on an individual’s or entity’s Intellectual Property Rights. It is the intermediary’s responsibility to inform users to refrain from disseminating any information that may infringe on an individual’s proprietary rights, and if any user is found to be engaging in such illegal activity, then the intermediary has the authority to terminate the access of the user.
However, copyright infringement regulations tend to have been less successful from the very beginning due to the ease with which content may be shared via the Internet. It is difficult to identify those who engage in online video piracy because their identity and other personal information may be unknown. The Indian judiciary uses the John Doe order, also known as the Ashok Kumar order, to bring such people accountable. In the case of Taj Television & Anr v Rajan Mandal & Or, it was used for the first time. A John Doe order allows an intellectual property rights owner to defend his work by issuing a notice and taking action against anyone who infringes on the owner’s rights but whose identity is unknown to him.
In the recently concluded Delhi HC court case of Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Telegram FZ LLC, the Court ordered Telegram to take down particular channels where users were replicating and sharing copyrighted content of the plaintiff firm, which distributes a digital e-paper to its subscribers. The court also ordered Telegram to reveal the basic subscriber information of the channels’ users.
Digital Defamation
“Hasmukh,” a Netflix web series starring Vir Das and Ranvir Shorey, has gotten into difficulties. Some New Delhi lawyers have filed a legal notice with Netflix asking them to stop streaming the comedy web series because it negatively portrays lawyers. The appeal is brought by Supreme Court advocate Ashutosh Dubey, who claims that lawyers were referred to as thieves, rogues, goons, and rapists in episode 4 of the online series. According to Dubey, these sentiments are exceedingly insulting and humiliating, and they discredit the legal profession and lawyers in the eyes of the general people.
The said remarks have caused the utmost damage to the legal profession and have impugned the image of lawyers in the eyes of millions of viewers who visit this streaming website. The lawyer in his plea seeks a permanent injunction on the airing of the web series or to delete the particular clip.
The suit also pleads to direct the producers, directors, and writers of the web series to issue “an unconditional apology online for slandering the image of the lawyers’ community”. The Delhi High Court’s judge Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard the case on April 27, 2020, a plea seeking to restrain online media-streaming platform Netflix from airing its web series Hasmukh for sabotaging and defaming the image and reputation of lawyers. (Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors.)
Defining Defamation
Defamation is defined as the wrongful and purposeful publication of something about a person, whether in written or spoken form, to harm that person’s reputation in society.
The following fundamental factors must be present for a statement to be declared defamatory-
- The defamatory statement must be published, which means it must come to the attention of a third party.
- Only the plaintiff must be mentioned in the statement.
- The statement must be false and defamatory.
Defamation can be divided into two types: public and private defamation. Libel is a derogatory statement that is published in written form, while slander is a spoken form of defamation in which a defamatory assertion is made. Thus, the primary difference between the two types is the medium in which they are presented: one is expressed in writing, while the other is expressed orally.
Cyber Defamation
Although cyber defamation is a novel idea, the classic definition of defamation is harm done to a person’s reputation in the eyes of a third party, and this harm can be done by spoken or written communication, as well as signs and visible representations. The statement must be directed at the plaintiff, and it must be made to damage the reputation of the person against whom the remark is made. Cyber defamation, on the other hand, is defaming someone using a new and significantly more effective approach, such as the use of current electronic gadgets. It refers to the dissemination of derogatory information about another person in cyberspace or via computers or the Internet. Cyber defamation occurs when a person makes a defamatory comment about another person on a website or sends E-mails containing defamatory material to the individual to whom the statement was made.
Defamation and its exceptions are defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. imputation of words or signals with the intent or knowledge that such imputation will cause harm if something is said about a deceased person that would affect their reputation if they were alive, it may be considered defamation. Companies or associations are included in the class of people. It is not defamation unless the alleged defamatory comment lowers the moral or intellectual character of the plaintiff.
Defamation laws have sparked debate about whether they violate the basic right granted by Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has concluded that defamation laws are constitutionally valid and do not conflict with the right to free speech. The court also stated that the right to free speech and expression is “absolutely fundamental” but not absolute. Article 21 stipulates that a person’s right to life includes his or her right to reputation, which cannot be jeopardized by others’ freedom to free speech.
The second requirement for bringing a defamation complaint is missing in this case. In his words, the character in the web series ‘Hasmukh’ alluded to the entire community of advocates rather than naming any one of them by name. As a result, the entire premise of the argument collapses.
Case Laws
Kalandi Charan Lenka vs. the State of Odisha — In this case, the petitioner was hounded regularly, and the offender created a bogus account for her and sent obscene messages to her friends. On the walls of the hostel where the victim slept, a modified naked picture was also put. The perpetrator was found guilty of his crime by the court.
Smt. Nilangi Rajiv Gadkari vs Rajiv Dinesh Gadkari through P.A. Depamala Gadkari – After obtaining a divorce letter from her spouse, the respondent filed a lawsuit against him for harassing her and defaming her by posting lewd images on social media. The offense has already been registered and maintenance of Rs. 75,000 per month has been claimed by the wife(respondent).
Conclusion
“With great power comes tremendous responsibility,” a classic slogan from Spiderman stories, aptly captures the issue surrounding the use of technology and its possible misuse. The ease of communication has greatly improved with the introduction of the internet age. However, there is a catch to such convenience.
The rise in the number of streaming services available on the internet and corresponding increase in the content will only lead to more piracy from such video streaming services. Even though the current laws provide for certain measures to deal with this problem, it is essential to enact more specific laws which are in line with international standards along with strict implementation. This will ensure that the rights of creators of copyrighted works are protected, which will consequently lead to a decrease in OTT video piracy.
When free speech contradicts a person’s reputation, the State must establish a boundary, lest free speech becomes a weapon in the hands of certain individuals. A system that educates and informs people about what to do and what not to do in cyberspace, what is wrong and what is right, and what is defamatory and what is not defamatory, is desperately needed. Furthermore, the intermediaries that provide such an open platform should monitor the content that is placed on it and take necessary action against users who upload defamatory content to prevent such occurrences.
Editor’s Note
Defamation is defined as any intentional false statement, whether written or spoken, that hurts a person’s reputation; reduces the respect, esteem, or confidence in which a person is held; or inspires disparaging, hostile, or unpleasant views or sentiments against a person.
The Internet is the most cost-effective means to communicate via text, photos, and voice/sounds. One may even search for and save information from websites and other network providers. This cyberworld system operates on websites, online services, or the internet domain. Such a system is controlled by internet service providers or by the firm itself via its programmer and may include options for limitations on specific websites or use.
In this context, acting illegally in intruding, interfering, and faking contents of individuals or institutions by a technical genius or a person acting illegally, with the intent of defaming and denigrating the name and fame of individuals or institutions in order to gain a commercial edge or competitiveness or other unpalatable or against lawful obeyance, amounts to a crime committed through cyber instrumentals such as the internet, websites, and social media.
In the digital world, networking sites have grown in popularity. Sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and MySpace are experiencing a surge in popularity. Social networking services allow users to post not just personal information and material, but also photos, music, videos, short films, and other media. Images, videos, and other media can be labeled. As a result, it is critical for this social networking site to safeguard such material and its intent in its entirety in order to preserve privacy. Otherwise, a criminal act of cybercrime jeopardizes the fundamental premise of the definition of privacy by invading and inflicting hurt, causing or causing damage, or defaming the individual’s or entity’s reputation and renown.
Originally Published on October 24, 2021, 12:00 pm