been decided in the earlier round of litigation between the parties and the publisher. In fact, Google and YouTube have taken the stand that the impugned videos / URLs / web links have been duly disabled from the country domain. They have denied that the vilification campaign is at the behest of the Defendants and further state that they are strictly neutral and passive intermediaries. Insofar as Facebook is concerned, it has taken a stand that it is only an intermediary, which provides platform to third parties to upload content and it cannot be asked to proactively monitor its platform. Thus, the content of the video to the extent it contains paraphrasing of content which was directed to be removed from the book is held to be defamatory. A perusal of the video transcript and the offending portion of the book show the clear similarity and prima facie, establish that the video is derived from the book and hence is defamatory. In any event, this issue is moot inasmuch as the video begins by stating that it is based on the book. Thus, the defamatory nature of the video cannot be disputed. 3) Whether the Defendants are intermediaries and if so, what should be the form of injunction order that is to be passed? 34. In order to answer this question, the following aspects need to be considered: a) Role of Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter in the dissemination of content; b) Interpretation of Section 79; c) Whether geo-blocking is sufficient or whether a global injunction is required to be granted? CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 32 of 76