When it comes to development, the Internet is still in its infancy. Due to the novelty of these forms of communication, the regulations governing them are also in their formative years. Cyber Laws are becoming more sophisticated and must address more pertinent issues as the Internet continues to grow in popularity. While many nations and communities are still working on cyber legislation, India is pleased to be among the select few that have established such regulations. India is taking its economy worldwide. The impact of IT and ITS on the national economy, trade, and commerce is long-lasting. Online trading is now legal in India, according to the country’s Securities and Exchange Board. There is a wide variety of trading and data sharing happening on India’s stock exchanges at the moment. A new system of electronic payments has been implemented by the Reserve Bank of India. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies, among others, have expressed worry regarding computer crime. Issues pertaining to computer abuse, data security, privacy, security standards, IP rights, etc. The Information Technology Act of 2000 codifies cyber laws in India.
LAW AND TECHNOLOGY
There is no denying that the Internet is a highly technical setting. Emerging technologies often give rise to novel legal challenges. Because of its inflexibility, the legislation can obstruct development on occasion. Caching, a phenomenon on the Internet, provides an intriguing illustration. By keeping redundant copies close to the users who use the information, caching enables for more efficient transfer of data on networks. If a German user accesses a website on the Internet from California, a server in Europe may save a copy of the page so that other users in Europe can also view it. With this kind of caching, not only do users benefit from faster information access, but the network’s overall capacity to handle increased demand is also enhanced[1].
Some might argue that this type of “copying” is an infringement of copyright as there is no mention of fair use. Caching is not controlled by the conversations of copyright attorneys or law professors, even though this might be true from a legal standpoint. The practicality of the technology would be severely curtailed by the imposition of such a restriction. The potential effects on technology and the development of the Internet should inform any legal analysis of the network. When applied to the Internet, several US laws would severely restrict technological advancements. The existing case law ignores the significant distinctions between the traditional court system and the technological network. A research that looked at how the courts handled recent BBS instances examined the necessity of fixing these individual tech problems. Courts fail to conduct thorough investigations when deciding how to apply copyright laws to modern technology, as this case demonstrates. Many instances served as the basis for the study. One of these was Playboy v. Frena[2], in which a BBS operator was held responsible for copyright infringement due to the fact that his users had uploaded copyrighted photographs of Playboy.
Without deciding “whether unauthorised copies were generated” or “what defines a ‘copy,’ the courts have concluded infringement. According to the court’s analysis in Playboy v. Frena[3], a BBS provides services like “access to electronic space for the exchange of information,” but in this case, the seller was a BBS. The judge clearly didn’t get the BBS’s fundamental purpose. Both existing case law and the copyright laws suggested by the National Institute of Innovation (NII) demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the digital environment. Indeed, the judges’ evaluations of the BBS instances show an effort to shape the facts to conform to the existing copyright limitations. A valid concern is that the current system could lead to legally binding results that do not align with societal values. Unwanted results could include, for example, a concentration of power in a small number of people rather than the free and open dissemination of ideas and information to a large audience through the media.
Whereas formerly only the powerful could access these forms of communication, the rise of online platforms has levelled the playing field for user-to-user contact and social debate. A country’s government can be effectively manipulated by whoever controls its communications system. Aside from the United States, where a government-regulated oligopoly exists, this is a principal reason why communications infrastructures have historically been centrally administered by governments. While judicial proceedings tend to be centralised, the technological setting that computer-mediated communication provides really promotes decentralisation. The advent of self-publishing on the Internet has resulted in a broader spectrum of knowledge, as opposed to the centralised framework of traditional printing presses and publishers. It is essential to promote the development of this novel communication method and the accessibility of informational resources.
[1] ILVES, LUUKAS K., et al. “European Union and NATO Global Cybersecurity Challenges: A Way Forward.” PRISM, vol. 6, no. 2, 2016, pp. 126–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26470452. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
[2] 839 F.Supp. 1552 (1993)
[3] 839 F.Supp. 1552 (1993)