14. Telegram does not dispute, for the purposes of this application, the copyright of Plaintiff No.1 in her course material and videos. In fact, it is already taking down the infringing channels in terms of the interim order. Telegram has only opposed the grant of relief in this application to the extent that it cannot share the data relating to the creators or users of the channels, as the said data is stored in Telegram’s data servers in Singapore and the law of Singapore prohibits such disclosure. Moreover, as per Telegram, it being an intermediary under the IT Act, none of the pre-conditions which permit the intermediary to disclose the identity of the users, as per the IT Guidelines are satisfied. 15. This Court, first, notes that the fact that the infringing content was disseminated on various channels on the Telegram app, is not in dispute. Such channels are being blocked by Telegram. However, the users on Telegram are creating new channels and operating the same in private mode, hence they are able to mask their identity. On the said channels, the infringing copyrighted works have been shared, communicated, and uploaded. Charges are also being collected by the infringers, for providing the same. 16. The discovery application filed by the Plaintiffs, sets out the manner in which a Telegram account can be opened and the app can be downloaded by the users. According to the Plaintiffs, the Telegram app permits users to operate their businesses, either through a public channel or private channels. If they operate through private channels, the phone numbers or other details would not be visible. Thus, it is not possible to locate the owners of such channels. Such information is exclusively available only with Telegram. Since Telegram also makes secret chats possible, the phone numbers cannot be traced and the identity of the person(s) is also unknown. Some of the screen Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 9 of 51