2 ms·

> This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading. Haha, we are talking about Indian law. And US copy

by hulitu 2y ago

> This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading. Haha, we are talking about Indian law. And US copyright law is (thanks to MPAA, RIAA and international treaties) almost universally enforced.

aspenmayer 2y ago
Indian law only applies within India, and apparently is being unequally applied, as even India news articles about this legal case are not themselves subject to the rulings. This is selective enforcement, and isn't going to work, as the page is still available by other means, so the ruling is literally unenforceable outside India and likely also within India.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Are those news publishers named in this lawsuit? No? Then why should a subjudice gag apply to them? I've been generous in trying to engage with you in this thread, but it is hard now to not assume malintent. It's been pointed out repeatedly that this court order has nothing to do with copyright law, nothing to do with the political censorship the court cases are about, and nothing at all to do with external publishers. This is a defendant in a case being prevented from speaking about the case until the judgement of the court, as is absolutely standard practice in all commonwealth countries.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Assuming bad faith is against HN Guidelines. Please don't do that. The editors that created the page in question are not defendants in the case, and they are the ones being censored, and Wikipedia and WMF by proxy. Even if the Indian gag order were valid within India, which remains to be tried in court, such a ruling could not possibly apply worldwide, as India could not effectively enforce such an order outside Indian networks. This type of gag order applied against Wikipedia has never happened before, nor been complied with pending trial, so no, I would not agree that this is standard practice within the Commonwealth or without.

by hulitu 2y ago

aspenmayer 2y ago

Indian law only applies within India, and apparently is being unequally applied, as even India news articles about this legal case are not themselves subject to the rulings. This is selective enforcement, and isn't going to work, as the page is still available by other means, so the ruling is literally unenforceable outside India and likely also within India.

adastra22 2y ago
Are those news publishers named in this lawsuit? No? Then why should a subjudice gag apply to them? I've been generous in trying to engage with you in this thread, but it is hard now to not assume malintent. It's been pointed out repeatedly that this court order has nothing to do with copyright law, nothing to do with the political censorship the court cases are about, and nothing at all to do with external publishers. This is a defendant in a case being prevented from speaking about the case until the judgement of the court, as is absolutely standard practice in all commonwealth countries.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Assuming bad faith is against HN Guidelines. Please don't do that. The editors that created the page in question are not defendants in the case, and they are the ones being censored, and Wikipedia and WMF by proxy. Even if the Indian gag order were valid within India, which remains to be tried in court, such a ruling could not possibly apply worldwide, as India could not effectively enforce such an order outside Indian networks. This type of gag order applied against Wikipedia has never happened before, nor been complied with pending trial, so no, I would not agree that this is standard practice within the Commonwealth or without.