Online Piracy And Intellectual Property Infringement Prosecutions
🧾 I. Overview: Online Piracy and IP Infringement
Online piracy refers to the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of copyrighted digital content (such as films, music, software, books, and games) through the internet — including torrent sites, streaming platforms, and file-sharing services.
Intellectual Property (IP) refers to creations of the mind — inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, and images. IP rights (IPR) are protected by various laws to ensure creators benefit from their work.
⚖️ II. Legal Framework in India
India protects intellectual property through a combination of statutes:
| Type of IP | Relevant Law | Protection Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Copyright Act, 1957 | Literary, musical, artistic, and cinematographic works |
| Trademarks | Trade Marks Act, 1999 | Brand names, logos, symbols |
| Patents | Patents Act, 1970 | Inventions and new products/processes |
| Designs | Designs Act, 2000 | Industrial designs |
| IT-related crimes | Information Technology Act, 2000 | Electronic and digital infringements |
Key Provisions (Copyright Act, 1957):
Section 51: What constitutes infringement
Section 63: Criminal liability — imprisonment (6 months to 3 years) and fine
Section 65A & 65B: Protection of technological measures and rights management information (added by 2012 Amendment)
Section 69A (IT Act): Blocking of websites involved in piracy
🧠 III. Judicial Approach to Online Piracy
Courts in India have developed a strong jurisprudence against online piracy, emphasizing:
Strict liability for direct infringement,
Blocking orders against rogue websites,
Recognition of dynamic injunctions (against mirror or future infringing sites), and
Balancing freedom of speech with IP protection.
🧑⚖️ IV. Major Case Laws
Let’s discuss five landmark cases that illustrate how Indian courts have dealt with online piracy and IP infringement.
1. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. (2011) 48 PTC 49 (Del)
Facts:
Super Cassettes (T-Series) sued MySpace (a social networking site) for copyright infringement, alleging that users were uploading and sharing copyrighted music and videos without authorization.
Issues:
Whether an online platform like MySpace is liable for copyright infringement committed by its users.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court held that MySpace could not claim “safe harbor protection” under Section 79 of the IT Act if it failed to act upon notice of infringement.
The Court observed that MySpace’s active involvement in monetizing the infringing content through ads meant it was not a neutral intermediary.
However, liability was not strict — it depended on knowledge and control over the infringing content.
Principle Established:
Platforms must adopt notice-and-takedown mechanisms and cannot benefit from infringing acts if they have knowledge and control of the content.
2. UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337x.to & Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8002
Facts:
UTV and other film producers sued several torrent and streaming websites for hosting pirated versions of their films.
Issues:
How can courts effectively tackle online piracy when infringing websites keep reappearing under new domain names?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court recognized the concept of “Dynamic Injunctions”, allowing rights holders to block not just existing websites but also future mirror or redirect sites.
The Court classified certain websites as “rogue websites” because their primary purpose was to facilitate piracy.
The Court directed ISPs and DoT/MeitY to block access to such websites and ordered warning notices to users accessing them.
Principle Established:
Introduction of Dynamic Injunctions in Indian IP law — an adaptive mechanism to counter fast-changing online piracy.
3. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors. (2016) (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Star India, which owns the rights to several television shows and sports events, sued a website (Moviestrunk.com) that was streaming its content without permission.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants and ISPs from displaying or distributing Star India’s content.
The Court ordered “John Doe” (Ashok Kumar) injunctions — orders against unknown persons — recognizing that infringers often hide their identity online.
Principle Established:
Courts can issue John Doe injunctions to curb online piracy when infringers’ identities are unknown, ensuring proactive enforcement of IP rights.
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
While primarily a free speech case, it also examined how intermediary liability works under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that intermediaries are only required to remove content upon receiving actual notice from a court or government authority, not merely on private complaint.
This protects intermediaries (like ISPs, hosting services) from arbitrary takedown requests while balancing IP enforcement with freedom of expression.
Principle Established:
Clarified intermediary liability — platforms are not automatically liable for user-generated content unless they have actual knowledge of infringement through due process.
5. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. BSNL & Ors. (2019) (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Warner Bros and other Hollywood studios sued ISPs and websites distributing pirated movies like Aquaman and Fantastic Beasts online.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court issued John Doe and Dynamic Injunctions, allowing not only current infringing sites but also mirror domains to be blocked in the future.
The Court also directed DoT and MeitY to take active measures to block URLs and support enforcement.
Principle Established:
Confirmed the effectiveness of Dynamic + John Doe Injunctions to counter recurring digital piracy and emphasized cooperation between courts, ISPs, and government agencies.
🧩 V. Key Principles Derived
| Principle | Meaning | Landmark Case |
|---|---|---|
| Intermediary Liability | Platforms liable only with actual knowledge or active control | MySpace Case (2011), Shreya Singhal (2015) |
| Dynamic Injunctions | Future mirror/redirect sites can be blocked proactively | UTV v. 1337x.to (2019) |
| John Doe Orders | Protection against unknown infringers | Star India v. Moviestrunk.com (2016) |
| Balance Between IP and Free Speech | Protection of IP must respect Article 19(1)(a) rights | Shreya Singhal (2015) |
| International Cooperation | Need for cross-border blocking and ISP cooperation | Warner Bros. v. BSNL (2019) |
🏁 VI. Conclusion
Indian courts have progressively strengthened their stance against online piracy by:
Recognizing dynamic and John Doe injunctions,
Clarifying intermediary liability,
Balancing IP protection with digital freedom, and
Emphasizing judicial proactiveness against digital offenders.
The jurisprudence reflects a shift from traditional copyright enforcement to technology-adaptive judicial remedies, ensuring that creative rights are protected in the digital era.
RELATED Blog
0 comments