Category: Media Law

Is Embedding a YouTube Video Legal?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This piece has been authored by Jubin Jay, a final year student at National Law University, Odisha (NLUO). 

A lot of people use YouTube videos to enhance their online articles or webpages. Some provide a regular link to the YouTube video while some provide with an embedded link of the same.  While embedding, the video itself appears on the webpage and the user is not redirected to YouTube, in contrast to the previous case, where it only appeared as a link. Now, this is problematic because someone else’s video appears on one’s own webpage. A lot of people argue that this is similar to using someone else’s work for your gain without their permission, amounting to a copyright violation. However, there is ambiguity and a lot of questions are yet to be answered in such cases to prove an infringement. So, the broader question remains, is embedding a YouTube video legal?

Read more

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive: A license to gag freedom of expression globally?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

The following post has been authored by Bhavik Shukla, a fifth year student at National Law Institute University (NLIU) Bhopal. He is deeply interested in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law and Technology law. In this post, he examines the potential chilling effect of the EU Copyright Directive.

Freedom of speech and expression is the bellwether of the European Union (“EU”) Member States; so much so that its censorship will be the death of the most coveted human right. Europe possesses the strongest and the most institutionally developed structure of freedom of expression through the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). In 1976, the ECHR had observed in Handyside v. United Kingdom that a “democratic society” could not exist without pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. However, the recently adopted EU Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market (“Copyright Directive”) seeks to alter this fundamental postulate of the European society by introducing Article 13 to the fore. Through this post, I intend to deal with the contentious aspect of Article 13 of the Copyright Directive, limited merely to its chilling impact on the freedom of expression. Subsequently, I shall elaborate on how the Copyright Directive possesses the ability to affect censorship globally.

Read more

De-linking the Deep Links: An Insight Into the PVR-Justdial Controversy

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

This post by Archita Prawasi, currently in her 3rd year at NALSAR University of Law, was originally published here. In an explanatory piece, she brings forth the impact of technology on IPR.

A recent dispute between PVR and Justdial has highlighted the connection between various facets of networking and IP infringement that ensues through the use of regular networking tools like deep links, meta tags and frames. With the interim order by the Delhi High Court against Justdial, it seems that new age digital awareness is catching up with the old and still relevant IP laws in the country. Before discussing the facts of the dispute, it is relevant to discuss the implications of the networking tools forming the dispute.

Read more

App Stores and Abuse of Dominance: The Case Against Apple (Part I)

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[Ed Note: The following is the first part of a two-part post authored by Mohini Parghi, a third year student of NALSAR University of Law. This post has been authored as part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2019-20. Part II can be found here.]

Introduction

Recent developments have seen a significant amount of discussion on the activities of tech giants such as Google and Apple and their anti-competitive effects. One of the focal points of these discussions has been the app store. Last month, Spotify’s allegations against Apple for, inter alia, imposing unfair conditions and giving preferential treatment to Spotify’s competitor Apple Music brought these issues into the limelight. In addition to this, the Dutch Competition Authority launched an investigation into app store related competition law concerns. Across the Atlantic, the US Supreme Court also ruled against Apple when it held that customers could sue Apple for the 30% commission it charges, even though it is paid by the app developers. Clearly, the case against Apple for using its App Store to stifle competition has gained traction. Such cases would prove to be instructive for future action against tech giants for using online platforms to abuse their dominance and the purpose of this post is to provide a brief idea of how such cases could proceed.

Read more

Continued Use of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000

Posted on by Tanvi Apte

The “Existence” of a Non-Existent Law and the Broader Issues it Raises

The Information Technology Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”), India’s nodal law on regulation of information technology, was significantly amended in 2008 in order to plug certain loopholes in the original Act as well as accommodate further technological development within its legal framework. Among other things, this 2008 amendment to the Act introduced Section 66A, which essentially made sharing of “grossly offensive”, “insulting” or “menacing” information (Read: criticism of political parties) through electronic media a criminal offence.

Read more

The Dark Web : To Regulate Or Not Regulate, That Is The Question.

Posted on by Shweta Rao

[Ed Note : In an interesting read, Shweta Rao of NALSAR University of Law brings us upto speed on the debate regarding regulation of the mysterious “dark web” and provides us with a possible way to proceed as far as this hidden part of the web is concerned. ]

Human Traffickers, Whistleblowers, Pedophiles, Journalists and Lonely-Hearts Chat-room participants all find a home on the Dark Web, the underbelly of the World Wide Web that is inaccessible to the ordinary netizen.  The Dark Web is a small fraction of the Deep Web, a term it is often confused with, but the distinction between the two is important.

Read more

RELIANCE JIO: REGULATORY AND PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS

Posted on by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Sayan Bhattacharya, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

In the world of technology dominated by a power struggle in terms of presence and absence in data circles, Reliance Jio has probably made the biggest tech news of the year with its revolutionary schemes. By adopting a loss-leader strategy of immediate loss and ultimate dominance, Reliance Jio has promised its subscribers stellar features like free voice calls, extremely cheap data packages, abolition of national roaming  charges and striking down extra rates on national holidays on shifting to its network. This is set to significantly affect competition by taking India’s data scenario from a data scarcity to data abundance mode.

Read more

The Right to Be Forgotten – An Explanation

Posted on by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Ashwin Murthy, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

The right to be forgotten is the right of an individual to request search engines to take down certain results relating to the individual, such as links to personal information if that information is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue. For example, if a person’s name is searched on Google and certain information appears relating to that person, the person can request Google to remove that information from the search results. This has its largest application in crime and non-consensual pornography (revenge porn or the distribution of sexually explicit material depicting a person without their consent). If X committed a petty crime and a person searching X’s name finds this petty crime, it leads to an obvious negative impact to X, in terms of job prospects as well as general social stigmatisation. X can ask the providers of the search engine to remove this result, claiming his right to be forgotten. The right is not necessarily an absolute right – in its current stage of discussion it merely applies to information that is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue and not any and all information relating to the person. Further there lies a distinction between the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten – the right to privacy is of information not available to the public while the right to be forgotten is removal of information already available publicly.

Read more