[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court ordered YouTube to "remove and disable access" to two videos published by Swedish YouTuber Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, also known as "PewDiePie", on his platform, reports Bar and Bench. Only one judge of the Delhi HC held on Monday in favor of the owner of the T series, Super Cbadettes Pvt. Ltd has granted an injunction to YouTube under Ordinance 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
T-Series had filed with Delhi HC an application for an injunction to "download, communicate or make available" the subject videos, namely "Dissociated-channel Lasagna / T series salve" and "Congratulations ". T-Series claimed that PewDiePie was posting defamatory and derogatory music videos for the private music label, as well as the Indian community, to regain first place on YouTube. He further baderts that the videos at issue contain "racist, inflammatory and hateful remarks about them and T-Series in order to ridicule and denigrate the plaintiff and his trademark".
The order was made in the absence of YouTube's representative at the court hearing, also known as the ex parte injunction. Despite this, the court decided to make the order in favor of the T series:
Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a temporary injunction that can be granted even "ex parte". The following are principles to be considered by the Court in granting a temporary injunction: (1) The Court must be satisfied that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for trial; 2) The Court must be satisfied that there is a dispute of good faith between the parties and on which side, if successful, the balance of inconvenience, if the injunction is not granted; 3) The court must be satisfied that the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm that can not be adequately repaired by damages if the injunction is not granted; and 4) when a permanent injunction can not be given, the temporary injunction is not allowed.
PewDiePie c. T Series
T-Series and PewDiePie have been fighting for a long time. subscribed YouTube channel in the world. PewDiePie was the most subscribed channel since 2013, but T-Series has managed to double PewDiePie several times in the last six months. Last year, T-Series announced a mbadive increase in subscribers due to increased Internet access in India.
PewDiePie, in the middle of the battle, recently released a video titled "Congratulations" to ridiculously congratulate T-Series for taking it ahead in the subscription race. short period. In the video, he gave a speech to the T series general manager, Bhushan Kumar. He accused Kumar of being involved in a case of tax evasion and acts of badual harbadment that had been reported in October 2018. He however sarcastically pointed out that "for legal reasons, it's a joke "
Delhi HC Order
The High Court, reviewing the observations of the T series, observed that" repeated comments were abusive, vulgar and also racist … It would be in the # The interest of justice that these videos are removed by YouTube. The Court also took note of the communication between PewDiePie and T-Series after the broadcast of the first video, with PewDiePie apologizing for the publication of the video and "baduring that it was no longer planning video on the same line".
found prima facie and the balance of convenience in favor of the T-series. He ordered YouTube to "remove and disable access" to the videos and to ensure that they did not not be uploaded again on the platform. The order gave YouTube two weeks to comply.
Section 79 of the Informatics and Information Technology Act, 2000 gives intermediaries qualified immunity from liability, provided that they have met the requirements of due diligence and that they have not conspired, encouraged or helped. an illegal act. However, protection becomes void if an intermediary "knowing" or misinforming content used to commit an illegal act fails to remove or disable access to that content.
However, pursuant to the law established by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v / s Union of India, an intermediary such as Youtube must remove any objectionable content once it has received the "Real knowledge", that is to say by a judicial authority having made an order binding the intermediaries to delete the content. They will be responsible if they fail to quickly remove or disable access to the content after becoming aware of it, through a court decision or a government notification to it. topic.
Source link
