Profile cover photo
Profile photo
VJ Patel (b00gieMAndroid)
1,374 followers -
Tech-Lover-Junkie, Cracking up Jokes, Sarcastic, Witty, Funny, Loves to Cook, Likes to Change a lot..(guess what change am talking about)
Tech-Lover-Junkie, Cracking up Jokes, Sarcastic, Witty, Funny, Loves to Cook, Likes to Change a lot..(guess what change am talking about)

1,374 followers
About
VJ's posts

Viewing pirated films online not an offence: Bombay HC
Sep 5, 2016

Merely viewing pirated copy of a film not punishable under Copyright Act, says Bombay HC

Says offence is in selling or publicly showing pirated films

Asks ISPs to change ‘error message’ on blocked sites that had spooked viewers

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has said it is inaccurate to suggest that merely viewing an illicit copy of a film is a punishable offence under the Copyright Act.+

"The offence is not in viewing, but in making a prejudicial distribution, a public exhibition or letting for sale or hire without appropriate permission copyright-protected material," Justice Gautam Patel said. He asked Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to drop the line "'viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating' a particular film is a penal offence" from the 'error message' and directed them to display a more generic message on URLS to be blocked for infringement of copyright.

He made the observation in an order last month when it was pointed out that an ISP had displayed a message that had sent viewers in a tizzy.

The HC had recently directed ISPs to block several URLs on a plea by producers of the film Dishoom+ against piracy. The court also directed ISPs to place an 'error message' on the blocked sites as a measure to ensure genuine e-commerce sites are not affected.

"Omprakash Dharmani from Tata Communications is present in court. He says the firewall being used by Tata Communications and almost all other ISPs has an inbuilt software limitation: it does not allow the display of a file in excess of 32 kb. This is an absurdly small size,'' Justice Patel said, expressing concern that the message must give enough details.
fter hearing advocate Nikhil Rodrigues for the producer and senior counsel V Tulzapurkar for the ISP, Justice Patel said, "The basic purpose must be kept in mind, so that a person who is inadvertently adversely affected by a blocking order is made aware of his remedies and about which court he or she can approach for corrective or remedial action."

The court directed the ISPs to add a generic "error message'' to these blocked URLs to state that the site was blocked pursuant to an order of the court and that anyone with a grievance could contact the nodal officer of the ISP.

The message must also say, "Infringing or abetting infringement of copyright-protected content including under this URL is an offence in law. Sections 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 51, prescribe penalties of a prison term of up to 3 years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh." The judge said the ISP must appoint a nodal officer with a dedicated email address and respond to complaints within two working days. The order must be followed by all ISPs including Vodafone and MTNL, said the HC.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Open the link.. rotate the globe on the screen to your desired radio station under the pointer.. The radio will start playing automatically. .

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Request to close your account from axis bank fast any time govt can cancel license of bank
Photo

Post has attachment
The Demonetisation Notification Is Illegal And Violates The Constitution, Here Is How

One month after demonetisation, the Supreme Court is hearing several public interest petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the “demonetisation notification”, which declared that Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes would no longer be legal tender post midnight on November 8, 2016. 

The preamble to the notification stated that its objective was to eliminate fake currency used for financing terrorism and to address the problem of “unaccounted money” in the economy. The notification permitted unlimited deposit of the now illegal Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, and over the counter exchange of the notes up to a limit of Rs 4,000. The notification also imposed limits on ATM and bank withdrawals. Since then, the government has made many changes to the applicable limits. 

According to some estimates, 86% of Indian currency was in the now illegal Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. Since 68% of all transactions in India are cash transactions, drastically restricting the use of 86% of the currency has predictably caused chaos. 

Endless queues at banks, reports of slowdown of trade and more than 80 reported deaths have led many to question the wisdom of this move and its efficacy in achieving its objectives visà-vis the costs to the people and abridgement of their rights.

The Supreme Court will not entertain arguments regarding the efficacy of demonetisation since it rightly defers to government on matters of economic policy. 

It must, however, decide the legality of this move. The demonetisation notification is illegal because it goes beyond the scope of what is permitted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, (RBI Act), the stated source of authority for the notification. 

Nor is it saved by Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1935, as the government has argued in court. There is also a prima facie case of abridgement of fundamental rights to movement Article 19(1)(d); trade or business, Article 19(1)(g); livelihood and, in case of those dead, life (Article 21); equality (Article 14); and the constitutional right to property (Article 300A). 

Section 26(2) of the RBI Act empowers the government to declare any series of notes as illegal tender. Twice before, in 1946 and 1978, the government demonetised to address the problem of “unaccounted money”. While the Banking Regulation Act empowers the RBI to issue directions to banks in the “public interest”, that stipulation cannot reasonably justify the continuously shifting restrictions on cash withdrawals and deposits that we have seen in the past month. Nor does it enable the RBI to discriminate between holders and non-holders of bank accounts, as the present notification has done. Such actions require an authorising legislation, either an act of Parliament or by ordinance. 

Both in 1946 and in 1978, similar actions were authorised by an ordinance. The failure to issue an ordinance to provide the legal basis for the demonetisation notification this time renders the exercise illegal. 

Three Wrongs

The demonetisation notification is also likely unconstitutional on three counts. First, it violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. In Jayantilal v RBI, in the context of the 1978 demonetisation, the Supreme Court held that demonetisation is not merely a regulation of property, as the government is presently arguing, but constitutes compulsory acquisition of a “public debt” owed to the bearer of the notes declared illegal. 

Under Article 300A, the state may deprive an individual of property only by “law”, and not by executive notification as the government has done here. The government’s failure to issue an ordinance (since Parliament was not in session at the time) to extinguish the RBI’s debt to the people impermissibly violates the constitutional right to property. However, even if the demonetisation had been sanctioned by ordinance, there is a strong claim that the rationingof currency constitutes a form of creeping expropriation for which there has been no compensation, which nevertheless violates Article 300A. Second, the extraordinary hardship caused by demonetisation has impacted fundamental rights to trade, business and livelihoods of vast sections of the population and the right to life of those who have died. 

While the government may “reasonably” restrict fundamental rights in the interests of the “general public”, it bears the burden of showing that these restrictions are reasonable. The test of reasonableness is whether the measure was necessary to achieve the government’s objectives, and whether less risky, less harmful alternatives were available. The reasonableness of a measure must be assessed in terms of its “immediate effects” on the affected population. 

Unlike the 1978 demonetisation that impacted only 1% of currency held, the 2016 demonetisation insofar as it impacts an estimated 86% of total currency has had punitive effects on many sections of the population, including, daily wage earners, those without bank accounts and those dependent on the informal cash economy for their livelihood and business. The notification is unconstitutional for violating their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. 

Third, the notification also discriminates between holders and non-holders of bank accounts. 

While the government has argued that such a classification is necessary to achieve their objectives of eliminating unaccounted money, insofar as the government failed to ensure that 100% of the population had bank accounts prior to the issuance of this surprise notification, the classification may be assailed as arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Article 14. 

We live in a country governed by the rule of law, and not by the rule of men. The objectives of the demonetisation notification may be laudable, whether the notification will achieve those objectives is debatable. But, as it exists, the demonetisation notification is illegal and violates the Constitution. 

जब भी जिंदगी रुलाये समझना गुनाह माफ़ हो गये...!!☝🏻
और जब भी जिंदगी हँसाये समझना दुआ कुबूल हो गयी...!!💞
Wait while more posts are being loaded