You may get 3 yrs in jail, Rs 3 lakhs fine for downloading copyrighted content

Very true @technofast and @vivek.krishnan , you both are right with the points you make.

Watching movies in theaters nowadays has gone very costly, with ridiculous rates. Add to that, most Hindi movies being made today are crappy. How do they expect people to go and watch these crappy movies and that too spend a fortune on them.

Why not make the movies available at low rates, in digital format, or atleast via low rate streaming sites if they want to prevent piracy.

Further, in my city, there are shops that openly sell Hindi and English movies for ₹ 5 each, that too latest ones. They have big charts where names of latest movies are displayed... with their formats too. These shops are operating openly, and no one is catching them.
 
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/rep...ents-here-s-what-an-expert-has-to-say-2248677

Section 63 makes knowingly infringing or abetting copyright in a work (includes a movie, song, software, books, etc.) an offense.

Infringement happens when any person:

a. makes copies of;
b. distributes;
c. carries out public performance (with respect to a play, script, novel, song, etc.);
d. makes a movie or sound recording;
e. translates;
f. creates adaptations

of any work without the permission of the person who has got the exclusive right to do any or all of the above acts.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act lists the exceptions to infringement of copyright. Under Section 52, one of those exceptions includes fair dealing (except a computer program) for private private use of any copyrighted work. What constitutes fair dealing is not defined in the law. So, if a person views or downloads a song, video, etc, for his own viewing, it may constitute an exception and may not amount to an offence under Section 63.

Section 63A provides for greater punishment with respect to a second or subsequent offense. So, clearly that is not applicable to here.

Section 65 makes possessing a plate for the purpose of making an infringing copy an offence. A plate is defined (among others and relevant to this discussion) as a duplicating equipment intended for reproducing copies of any work. Viewing or downloading work may not be interpreted as possessing a plate for purpose of making infringing copies. Hence, this provision is not applicable to viewing or downloading of movies or songs from a Torrent site.

Section 65A talks about circumventing technical measures deployed for protecting copyright. This section is directly applicable to cracks used for installing pirated software. Any person using a crack for defeating activation requirements or to dispense with a license key is liable under this provision. Other instances would include access to a subscription site like Netflix or any other similar site by hacking.

Section 63B (not given in the message displayed onscreen) is directly applicable to use of pirated computer programs and makes it an offence. There is no equivalent of Section 63 for content other than software programs.

Merely browsing a torrent website cannot be an offense unless one begins to download and store. Even then, if one is not distributing or circulating the content downloaded from Torrent websites, it is doubtful whether an offense is made out under the current laws.
Click to expand...
 
I'd read a comment somewhere (many years ago when similar topic was being discussed) that according to the wording of the law (or how it could be interpreted), if a user downloads "stuff", they are not the ones actually liable but it is the ISP itself that may be liable for enabling "distributing" the content in the first place :D
 
^^^ I think the author does not realise that when you download via torrents, you upload at the same time - this you are effectively sharing.

Secondly, coming to the plate theory, now, we don't have negatives and positives, but digital copies. A copy is as good as the original itself.

Best is to stop going to cinemas till they clear this muck up. Anyways, there aint much good movies :p
 
Is it just me or did the "hon" court just went full retard mode? I bet all these are because of some damn crappy Bollywood publishers nagging the court. I bet this is because of Bollywood publishers asking the courts to take down the sites.
The court should've tried to verified the petitioners' claims by checking the music library in the phones and asking them if all the songs are legit copies and legally bought. That should give the court a fair idea no?
 
Last edited:
^^ Should a judge let a burglar go free if he points out that somebody else is also stealing (like say a politician). Does that make any sense?

Piracy being universal in the country is not a valid argument for a judge to not take action.

Judges have to go by the law even if the judgement's end up being stupid. Stupid john doe orders are not uncommon either. Few years back, some Tamil movie producer managed to a john doe order to block youtube before his yet to be released movie could be potentially uploaded on to youtube by an persons unknown (John doe). The ban was enforced for a day before ISP's appealed and got it revoked.
 
Lord Nemesis said:
^^ Should a judge let a burglar go free if he points out that somebody else is also stealing (like say a politician). Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
From where did the politician come in? No politician would take a burglar to the court! Not unless something like the burglar burgled the politician's constituency of his votes which BTW would be hilarious.
My argument was for the accused and the defendant.
The defendant, in this case the publishers and the organizations, filed the charges because they don't want their products illegally owned (downloaded). What if the court found the defendants themselves contradicting their own charges? I would pay to watch the drama!
 
vivek.krishnan said:
Best is to stop going to cinemas till they clear this muck up. Anyways, there aint much good movies :p
Click to expand...

It's only going to get more mucky, from what it looks. Only if all could boycott going to the movies, until they lowered the rates, or provided a cheap option to stream or download movies, or buy them.

It's true... there aren't many good movies being made, specially in Hindi. A mere few are worth watching.
 
First of all, Our country doesn't have the bandwidth for even 30% of the population to stream SD videos let alone HD.

Even if Jio launches officially & most subscribe & play the movie. This again cause a large amount of stress on their lines.Their preview offer is the best example for this. The same holds true even for cinemas.
 
Need to download CrOS, which is hosted on depositfiles. http://getchrome.eu/download

(Yes, I know its old, but need for an ancient system)

Getting this

“This URL has been blocked under instructions of a competent Government Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Infringing or abetting infringement of copyright-protected content including under this URL is an offence in law. Ss. 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 51, prescribe penalties of a prison term of upto 3 years and a fine of upto Rs.3 lakhs. Any person aggrieved by the blocking of this URL may contact the Nodal Officer at urlblock@tatacommunications.com for details of the blocking order including the case number, court or authority to be approached for grievance redressals. Emails will be answered within two working days. Only enquiries regarding the blocking will be entertained.”
Click to expand...

Any suggestions? @Neo-N Can you give any email IDs where we can complain, to the judges?
 
Tata telecommunications was told by Mumbai HC to remove that threatening notice. Seems like they haven't done that yet.
I think I read somewhere that HC has asked for only specific URL to be blocked instead of taking shortcut and blocking everything. Can't seem to find it.
 
CapriAnupam said:
The site is opening fine for me. Seems like your particular ISP is blocking this.

It's really odd though, why would this site be blocked?

I faced a similar situation with the Avidemux site being blocked. Don't understand the reason, as it is a simple video editing free software.
Click to expand...

The site is not blocked, the depositfiles link (Main Download) is.

I know about HTTPS, I will be downloading the file later. That trick works on almost all blocks by Reliance, tata.

My point is - its a non infringing file. Tata has blocked it. On a different technical thing, they gave me another piece of shit advice. And that pisses me off.
 
It's really odd. Why would they block this download? I tried to check if the whole depositfiles domain was blocked, but it isn't, I can open its site.

This is really stupid.

Avidemux has a new version. I tried to open its site. Still blocked.

On what basis are they blocking these URLs? They have gone stupid it seems... blocking perfectly fine sites, and downloads.

There are mirrors on the site of CrOS though, if they are working, you can still download from those mirrors.
 
vivek.krishnan said:
Any suggestions? @Neo-N Can you give any email IDs where we can complain, to the judges?
Click to expand...

^^ Lol... This is India! Here people die attending dates of cases before they can get any response from the judges!

You could send a letter to the Supreme Court and if it thinks that your letter talks about a social cause that is affecting the population at large, it can take suo moto action.
 
For me, the whole of whole of depositfiles.com is being blocked. Still, you can probably use the torrent to download.

In any case, You might have better luck reaching Google and getting them to do something about it than trying to send a message to our judges and waste some bytes on some server. Google seems to have on occasions taken up and fought cases of this type in other countries where disproportionate actions were taken for copyright claims.
 
Back
Top