Web Piracy: HC Says Block Links, Not Websites

Web Piracy: HC Says Block Links, Not Websites is a news report published by The Times of India on 22 June 2012. The article covers a crucial clarification issued by the Madras High Court regarding its earlier John Doe order, which had led to blanket blocking of entire websites by internet service providers. The court’s June 15 order mandated that only specific URLs containing infringing content should be blocked, not entire platforms. The report features commentary from Sunil Abraham on the problems with John Doe orders and how the court’s clarification addressed concerns about internet censorship.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background
External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:: The Times of India
📅 Date:: 22 June 2012
📄 Type:: News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:: Read Online

Full Text

NEW DELHI: If you are sick and tired of your internet service provider frequently blocking some popular websites, you can relax now. The Madras high court has ruled that its April 25 order against internet piracy should not be used to block the entire website; only specific web links should be blocked.

On an appeal filed by a group of internet service providers, the court in a June 15 order clarified that the content owners should give ISPs the specific web links through which the copyrighted material was being shared so that the ISPs could block them.

Following the HC order, most of the websites blocked by ISPs, except Piratebay, have become accessible again.

In recent months, there has been a spurt in John Doe orders — orders against unnamed entities — in India. Film producers have gone to various courts and obtained such orders against those who might pirate their films. This has invariably happened a day or two before the release of the film. Armed with these orders, film producers have prevailed upon ISPs to block entire websites, leading to resentment among web users and a wave of protests by net activists.

The high court's June 15 order came after its April 25 John Doe order led to ISPs blocking several websites, including Vimeo. The move was severely criticized by internet users in India, who blamed ISPs for the inconvenience caused to them. The blocking of websites also prompted Anonymous, a hacker collective, to raise concerns over what it perceived as web censorship. Anonymous attacked several government websites in protest and even organized real-world protests in several cities.

The high court in its latest order said: "The interim injunction [dated April 25] is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours."

Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based thinktank that tracks internet policy, said the court clarification was much needed.

"There are two problems with John Doe orders. They lack specificity. It's against an anonymous infringer. These orders also allow petitioners to misuse them as they demand complete blocking of websites without taking recourse to identifying the pirates and the URLs through which copyright material is being shared," Abraham said. "The latest court order addresses these issues. By asking ISPs to only block specific URLs it addresses major concerns about John Doe orders."

John Doe, a virtually unknown entity in this country, has of late become the favourite of film producers. Reliance Entertainment obtained several John Doe orders last year. Recently producers of "Gangs of Wasseypur" obtained such an order. After the film's director, Anurag Kashyap, received negative feedback from web users on Twitter, he said, "When my films were pirated, my investors and studio never blamed me for it but when the studio got a John Doe order for GoW, the internet blames me."

At the same time, he claimed he would try his best to make sure web users didn't suffer blanket bans on websites because of the order.

"The order has been taken by investing parties to protect their investment but they have assured me that it will be used responsibly. I can argue with them about not taking down entire sites and just the URLs, and they have assured they will do that," he tweeted.

Times View

The Madras high court order is a welcome step in guarding the rights of internet users. The internet is all about freedom of choice and free flow of information. Therefore, entire websites should not be blocked just because there might be some illegal content on them. Only specific URLs where pirated content is available should be blocked. An entire website may be blocked only when government and industry agree that it deals predominantly in pirated stuff. There should also be quick redress of copyright owners' grievances — illegal content should be blocked within, say, six hours, of verification. Websites on which a huge chunk of the content is illegal should be blocked for a specified period, say, three months, and given a chance to mend their ways. How huge is 'huge' — 5%, 10% or 15%? That may be decided by a committee comprising representatives of government and industry. The numbers mentioned here may sound arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere.

Context and Background

This article captures a critical moment in India’s early attempts to balance copyright enforcement with internet freedom. The Madras High Court’s June 15, 2012 clarification followed widespread criticism of its earlier John Doe order, which had resulted in internet service providers blocking entire websites rather than specific infringing content.

John Doe orders were designed to protect unreleased films from anonymous infringers, but by 2011–12 they had become increasingly common in Indian courts. These ex parte injunctions were often sought shortly before film releases and were framed broadly, without identifying specific defendants or URLs. In practice, this lack of precision created scope for over-enforcement.

ISPs, operating under legal uncertainty and concerned about liability, frequently responded by blocking full domains instead of individual links. This led to the disruption of access to platforms hosting substantial lawful content, including video-sharing and hosting services. The resulting inconvenience triggered public criticism and protests by internet users and digital rights groups, who viewed the blocking as a form of arbitrary censorship.

The controversy intensified after several high-profile films became associated with such orders, drawing attention to the collateral impact on ordinary users. Public debate spilled onto social media, and filmmakers themselves were drawn into the discussion, sometimes distancing themselves from the manner in which the orders were enforced.

The Madras High Court’s clarification introduced an important procedural restraint by directing that only specific URLs containing infringing material should be blocked, and by placing the burden on rights holders to identify those links within a defined time frame. Sunil Abraham’s critique highlighted the core weaknesses of John Doe orders: their anonymity and susceptibility to misuse when combined with broad enforcement powers.

While the ruling did not end the use of John Doe orders, it marked a move towards more proportionate enforcement and recognised the need to limit collateral censorship. The episode occurred before India developed clearer intermediary liability frameworks and remains a reference point in debates over online content regulation and due process.