Amid a public dispute between Twitter India and the Government of India, the Union’s Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said he was denied access to his Twitter account for nearly an hour on Friday.
Prasad wrote in a tweet that his account was blocked for “the alleged reason that there was a violation of the United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” Subsequently, Prasad was allowed access to the account.
Friends! Today something very peculiar has happened. Twitter denied access to my account for almost an hour on the alleged grounds that there was a violation of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and subsequently allowed me to access the account. pic.twitter.com/WspPmor9Su
— Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) June 25, 2021
This latest encounter with the microblogging site comes in the context of a months-long clash with the BJP-led Center, from requests to remove tweets supporting farmer agitation to a more recent dispute over new IT rules.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Law (DMCA) penalizes the production and dissemination of devices, services and / or technology, intended to circumvent measures that control access to works protected by copyright. It can be invoked to flag someone’s use of content without their consent.
It is clear that my statements denouncing the arrogance and arbitrary actions of Twitter, in particular the sharing of clips of my interviews with the television channels and its powerful impact, have clearly altered it.
— Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) June 25, 2021
The Union minister said that by blocking his account without notice, Twitter violated Rule 4 (8) of the Information Technology Rules (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Code of Ethics) of 2021.
It is currently unclear which Prasad post caused his account to be disabled. However, the IT minister claims that his statements “denouncing the arrogance and arbitrary actions of Twitter, in particular the sharing of clips of my interviews with television channels and its powerful impact, have clearly upset him.”
Also, in recent years, no TV channel or presenter has filed any complaints about copyright infringement regarding these news clips from my interviews shared on social media.
— Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) June 25, 2021
Prasad ended the tweet thread with a warning to Twitter, which read: “No matter what any platform does, they will have to comply with the new IT Rules in full and there will be no compromise on that.”
Regardless of what any platform does, they will have to fully comply with the new IT Rules and there will be no compromise on this.
— Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) June 25, 2021
A little after 4 p.m., Congressional Leader Shashi Tharoor tweeted to say that he, too, faced a similar issue, tweeting a popular song from him removed due to a copyright claim.
Raviji, the same thing just happened to me. Clearly, the DMCA is getting hyperactive. This tweet has been deleted by @Twitter because his video includes BoneyM’s copyrighted song “Rasputin”: https://t.co/ClgP2OKV1o #DanceIsNotJihad pic.twitter.com/IqQD50WhaU
After the process, the air conditioning was unlocked. https://t.co/TCeT8aGxV6
– Shashi Tharoor (hasShashiTharoor) June 25, 2021
Among a series of tweets, Tharoor mentioned that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology will reach out to Twitter India to seek clarity on why he and Prasad were banned from their accounts, and on the rules and procedures he follows for his operations in India.
As Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology, I can affirm that we will seek an explanation of @TwitterIndia for blocking @rsprasad‘s and my accounts and the rules and procedures that they follow while operating in India.
– Shashi Tharoor (hasShashiTharoor) June 25, 2021
Meanwhile, Aprameya Radhakrishna, CEO and Co-Founder of Koo issued a statement to this effect, saying: “It is important to provide the user with full context of any reported infringement and an indication of the exact infringement. The user should also be able to challenge or accept the alleged violation. A direct suspension action without the above makes it appear that a social media platform is making the final decision and is not acting as an intermediary. “
Via: FirstPost
–
