Actor Sherlyn Chopra, charged with profanity for posting “adult content” on free pornographic websites, has reached out to the Bombay Supreme Court to seek early bail. The application claims that the content is intended for a subscription-based international portal and that it is, in fact, a victim of piracy.
“It is highly incompetent to expect a self-made woman to produce adult content for a select group of international subscribers and then publish it on free porn websites and other portals for easy and free mass viewing.” Chopra, whose early bail was previously denied by a court hearing, has said.
Justice PD Naik has now released the case for a hearing on Monday after prosecutors issued a statement that no coercive measures would be taken against them until then.
In his complaint, 67-year-old Madhukar Keni, a retired Customs and Excise Officer, turned to cyber police on October 31, 2020 with a pen drive and a complaint against multiple adult content platforms. He claimed that when Chopra’s name was entered into a search engine, her obscene videos appeared on the screen.
Chopra was identified with 22 others by the Nodal Cyber Police in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, under Sections 292 (Profanity), 67 and 67A (Submission of Sexually Explicit Material) of the Information Technology Act 2008 and Sections of the Indecent Representation of Women (Protection) Act, 1986, on November 6, 2020.
In her application for early bail, submitted by attorney Charanjeet Chanderpal, Chopra described herself as a businesswoman and an artist.
Applicant is a self-made producer, actor and content creator who creates a) films, short films, web series for the Indian market and b) adult content for the international market through a subscription-based global website namely onlyfans.com. “
Chopra has said that she was never approached by the police to record her testimony and, in the current situation, she is not a defendant but a victim.
Chopra says she is a director in two companies and also creates content for another adult broadcaster’s website. According to an article in the New York Times, the site has put adult entertainment in the hands of its entertainers or sex workers. “Let’s call it the porn paywall,” the article says.
In their application, Chopra said that the freely available content of the porn site referenced in the FIR is all pirated, which is a copyright infringement. It is just a content provider for the original platform.
“The content provider makes it available to the company, which in turn provides the ad for paid viewers under an agreement. The infringers who stole this content from the company are making it freely available on porn sites,” says the application “None.” Content provider distributes directly or freely. ”
Chopra claims to have filed several complaints regarding infringers, saying that both the cyber police and the complainant ignored the link between piracy.
Chopra claims police are in a hurry, saying they did not get the “benefit of the doubt” through a “preliminary investigation into a case stinking of high levels of piracy and copyright infringement”.
Chopra says she faced relentless harassment from infringers who downloaded content from subscription-based websites, removed the watermark, and made the videos freely available.
In her application, she also says she has waited to expose the activities of “online malefactors” and has also complained about the cyber police’s bias since the complaint was filed against her.
Chopra’s motion adds that the complainant did not understand who the real culprit here is. “The law in this regard requires correction. Why does the law not fall heavily on those who view such matters?”