Google Benefits from Illegal Content: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Monday said that websites such as Google and Facebook could be liable for the content posted on their platform by users, as they benefit from it. Google India's counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued before the court that the complainant Vinay Rai has failed to find out the bloggers or users who are posting such images and 'instead blaming the landlord for what a tenant does'. 

"The landlord can't be held liable for an illegal activity carried out by a tenant in his house," said Kaul to a packed courtroom. 
In response, justice Suresh Cait said, "In this case, the landlord is benefiting from the illegal activity carried out by a tenant. Thus the landlord is liable." 
Hariharan, the counsel for complainant Vinay Rai, countered Google India's argument that Google India does not control or benefit from the platforms, such as YouTube, Orkut or Blogger. 
Hariharan said that every click on a Google-owned website gets it revenue for the content. He said that Google India is wrong in stating that it is just an ad collection subsidiary of Google Inc. "The memorandum of association of Google India shows that it is in the business of production of software, internet products, computer-aided design, analysis, selling internet search, engineering platforms and solutions. Thus it is not only in the business of advertising, as it states." 
Google India has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash summons against it in a lower court, on the premise that it does not control Google.com, or You-Tube.com, but just collects ads on behalf of Google Inc. 
The complainant countered Google India's argument that it is a separate legal entity. "The memorandum states that the office of Google India's managing director will be vacated upon direction of Google Inc. Its trademark can also not be changed without Google Inc's permission. Thus, both are closely linked," senior counsel Hariharan said. 
He also said that entirely all, but one share, of Google India, are held by Google Inc, and thus it is a direct beneficiary of the parent. "Google Inc owns about 91,294 shares in Google India. Only one share vests with some party," Hariharan said. Speaking earlier, Facebook's lawyer Sidharth Luthra said that the evidence collected by the complainant is not testified as an electronic record, and thus should not be admitted. Luthra cited the Tehelka case which he represented, where the images taken by Tehelka.com were not being admitted as electronic evidence, until the hard disk where it was stored was certified as per section 29 of Indian Penal Code. Lawyers for Google and Facebook argued that wholesale blocking of certain so-called 'obscene' keywords will limit the internet. 
Additional solicitor general AS Chandhiok, who was also present in the courtroom, said the government has given a sanction to prosecute these websites. "The government held four meetings with them last year. Despite bringing to their notice the content was not removed," he added. The court expressed the urgency to hear the matter on a daily basis. Justice Cait said there are about 2,000 criminal complaints pending before the court, but the court wants to hear this matter urgently, as it is very important for the nation. The high court has given Jan 19, as the next date of hearing. The court's decision will also be important for the internet users in India, about one-third (42 million) of whom are hooked on to Facebook. About 3 million access the Google Plus and Twitter while Google's Search is used by almost 100 million users.
"Right now, the laws are ambiguous and unclear," says Yogesh Bansal, CEO ofApnacircle.com, an internet portal for professional networking. If you are operating in India, you have to follow the law of the land. None wants website content to create a law and order problem in the society and create tensions among communities. But people should decide what's good for society," Bansal added.