O telegram resisted as long as he could, but there was no way. The service was forced by the High Court of Delhi, India, to share data of channel administrators accused of violating copyright. The order is the result of a lawsuit brought by a teacher. In the action, she argues that her educational material was being pirated.
The data delivered by Telegram to Indian authorities includes names, phone numbers and IP addresses of administrators of the accused channels. Obviously, the purpose is to identify those responsible for the alleged violation of copyrighted content.
The lawsuit was filed by teacher Neetu Singh. She complained that several Telegram channels were reselling his course materials without authorization and with prices below the official ones.
Still according to the defense, the disclosure would also make Telegram violate the laws of Singapore, where its servers are based.
The arguments were not accepted. For the Delhi High Court, offenders cannot go unpunished just because Telegram has chosen to operate its servers outside India.
Resisting (even more) the determination could be dangerous for Telegram. India is one of its biggest markets. Over there, the messenger accumulates around 150 million users. This number could drastically decrease in the event of a possible blockade for non-compliance with a court order.
On the last 24th, the judge in the case confirmed receipt of the data requested from Telegram.
Justice has already pressured Telegram in Brazil
It was precisely the risk of being banned that made Telegram respond to a court decision in Brazil in March, for the first time.
On the occasion, Alexandre de Moraes, Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), ordered the service to be blocked in the country for not providing data related to the case of Allan dos Santos, Bolsonarist communicator suspected of running a fake news network🇧🇷
Until then, Telegram simply ignored court orders issued in Brazil. The blocking order made the service respond to the STF without delay. Pavel Durov, CEO of Telegram, even apologized for not having received a response earlier under the “communication failure” argument🇧🇷
With information: TechCrunch🇧🇷 LiveLaw🇧🇷